Appeal allowed on Section 35F grounds due to non-compliance with Interim Order, remanded for fair reconsideration.

The appeal was allowed by way of remand as the Tribunal found the dismissal under Section 35F of the C.E. Act unjustified due to non-compliance with an Interim Order. The delay in Service Tax payment was attributed to inter-departmental transfer issues, not the appellant's fault. The Tribunal set aside the order, remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration within a specified timeframe, applying the Tribunal's ruling and ensuring a fair review based on legal precedent.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal under proviso to Section 35F of the C.E. Act for non-compliance of Interim Order.
2. Delayed payment of Service Tax due to transfer delay between government departments.
3. Request for remand based on a previous Tribunal ruling.
4. Consideration of the Tribunal's ruling and remand to the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 1:
The appeal was dismissed under the proviso to Section 35F of the C.E. Act due to non-compliance with an Interim Order directing the appellant to pre-deposit amounts. The reason for raising demands on the appellants was the delayed payment of Service Tax, which they claimed was collected and remitted on time. The delay was attributed to the Revenue not providing the account number promptly, causing transfer delays between government departments.

Issue 2:
The delay in transferring Service Tax amounts from the Principal Chief Controller of Accounts to the Central Board of Excise & Customs was highlighted. The appellants argued that the delay was not their fault but due to inter-departmental transfer issues. They referenced a previous Tribunal ruling that demands cannot be raised for such delays, setting a precedent for their case.

Issue 3:
The appellant's counsel requested a remand of the matter to the original authority based on the previous Tribunal ruling. The counsel sought a direction for the authority to apply the ratio of the judgment to their case, emphasizing the relevance of the precedent in resolving the appeal.

Issue 4:
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that the appeal's issue had already been decided by the Hon'ble President in a previous Final Order. Consequently, the dismissal of the appeal under Section 35F was deemed unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration, instructing the application of the Tribunal's ruling within a specified timeframe. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, ensuring a fair review based on the established legal precedent.

---