Appeal delay condoned, exclusion from limitation period, pre-deposit discrepancies addressed.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was condoned as the time during which the matter was pending before the wrong forum was excluded from the limitation period calculation. The Tribunal emphasized that this exclusion applied to both the High Court and the Tribunal proceedings. Regarding the pre-deposit of dues, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's decision due to discrepancies in the appellant's submission and remanded the matter for a fresh decision. The appellant was granted the opportunity to clarify the deposit made before the Commissioner (Appeals).

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Calculation of limitation period.
3. Pre-deposit of dues for filing appeals.

Condonation of Delay:
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals based on the condonation of delay and Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's view that he had no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days. However, the Tribunal noted that the facts of the case were different. A writ petition challenging the original order was pending before the High Court for a long period before being disposed of in 2011. The Tribunal held that the period during which the matter was pending before the wrong forum should be excluded from the limitation period calculation. Therefore, the appeal was considered to be filed within the limitation period before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Calculation of Limitation Period:
The Tribunal emphasized that the time during which the appeal or writ petition was pending before the wrong forum should not be counted towards the limitation period. In this case, as the matter was pending before the High Court and then before the Tribunal, that time was excluded from the calculation. This exclusion led to the conclusion that the appeal was filed within the limitation period before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Pre-Deposit of Dues:
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal due to contradictions in the appellant's submission regarding the payment of duty. The Commissioner found discrepancies between the appellant's claim of depositing the entire amount of duty before the High Court and seeking a stay against recovery. The Tribunal observed that the appellant needed an opportunity to clarify the deposit made. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on the limitation and pre-deposit of dues. The appellant was granted the opportunity to present their case before the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration.

---