Procedural delay and prima facie service classification case led to restoration of appeal and stay of recovery.

Delay in filing the appeal and non-appearance were treated as sufficiently explained, so the dismissal for non-prosecution was set aside and the appeal restored. On interim relief, the appellant was found to have a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery because the GTA demand had already been substantially discharged after abatement, leaving only interest, and the overseas payment was described as packaging commission rather than procurement commission. The balance demand was stayed pending disposal of the restored appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal and the non-appearance leading to dismissal for non-prosecution could be condoned and the appeal restored; (ii) Whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal and the non-appearance leading to dismissal for non-prosecution could be condoned and the appeal restored.

Analysis: The reasons given for the absence on the earlier dates and the delay in filing were accepted as genuine. The explanation showed that the non-appearance was not deliberate and that the appeal papers were not filed within time due to circumstances explained by the appellant.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the appeal was restored to its original number along with the connected applications.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal.

Analysis: The demand relating to GTA was found to have already been substantially discharged after considering abatement, leaving only interest. As regards the overseas payment, the agreement indicated that the service was packing or repacking of garments outside India, and the Tribunal treated the description as packaging commission not as procurement commission. On that basis, a prima facie case was found in favour of the appellant.

Conclusion: Waiver of pre-deposit was granted and recovery of the balance demand was stayed during pendency of the appeal.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding resulted in procedural relief to the appellant by condoning delay, restoring the appeal, and granting stay, while leaving the substantive tax dispute for decision in the restored appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the explanation for delay is found genuine and the appellant establishes a prima facie case on the nature of the disputed service and prior tax payment, restoration and interim stay may be granted pending final adjudication.

---