Appeals allowed, delay condoned, matter remanded for re-adjudication by Commissioner (Appeals-III).

The appeals were allowed, and the delay in filing was condoned. The matter was remanded for re-adjudication by the Commissioner (Appeals-III) based on the Tribunal's observations.

---

---

Issues:
Disposal of appeals solely on the ground of belated filing and non-payment of pre-deposit.

Analysis:
The appellant filed two appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals III), GST & CX, Mumbai against duty demand, interests, and penalties confirmed in adjudication orders. The appellant's contention was that the appeal was filed within 30 days of the deadline due to sufficient grounds for delay, but the Commissioner rejected the appeal under section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The appellant argued that a substantial portion of the tax liability was paid, which could have been adjusted towards the pre-deposit amount. The AR for the department disputed this claim, stating that duty demands were confirmed against cenvat credit on capital goods not recorded in the CC register. The Commissioner found that no pre-deposit was made against the duty demand, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The Commissioner noted that the OIOs were received by the appellant after a significant delay, and no documentary evidence was provided regarding the receipt. The Commissioner also mentioned that the appellant's office was taken over by a bank around the time of OIO dispatch. The appellant requested proof of delivery from the department, but the Commissioner found the grounds for delay insufficient. The Commissioner relied on legal precedents to support the decision regarding the appeal timeline. The Tribunal observed that the delay in filing the appeal was minimal and should have been condoned, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations.

Regarding the non-payment of the pre-deposit amount, the appellant's claim of having discharged 80% of the duty liability lacked supporting evidence. The Tribunal highlighted that the appeal should not have been entertained without the statutory pre-deposit, but once admitted, the appellant should have been given the opportunity to make the deposit before the appeal's dismissal. The Tribunal also discussed the procedural aspects concerning the assessment of the appeal's merit by the Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner.

The Tribunal emphasized the need for re-adjudication of both appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals) to assess the merits of the decision properly. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the matter was remanded back for re-adjudication based on the observations made.

In conclusion, both appeals were allowed, the delay in filing was condoned, and the matter was remanded for re-adjudication by the Commissioner (Appeals-III) based on the Tribunal's observations.

---