Appeal allowed, case remanded for re-hearing after rectifying pre-deposit issue.

The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal, remanding the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-hearing on merit. The Tribunal found that the dismissal of the appeal solely for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements was unwarranted, especially when the appellant rectified the issue by paying the full pre-deposit amount in cash. The previous order was set aside, enabling a re-evaluation of the case on its merits in accordance with Section 35A(iv) of the Central Excise Act 1944.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The legality of the adjudication order confirming the imposition of Service tax based on turnover shown in the Income tax returns of 2013-14 and the rejection of the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) due to non-payment of the required pre-deposit amount in cash is challenged in this appeal.

Summary:

Issue 1: Compliance with Pre-deposit Requirements

The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944, which mandates a deposit before filing an appeal. The appellant had paid a portion of the disputed amount through ITC reversal in GSTR-3B, but the Commissioner held that the deposit should have been made under the erstwhile law. The Tribunal noted the provisions of Section 35F and a relevant Board Circular, emphasizing the need for a deposit before entertaining an appeal. While acknowledging the Commissioner's reasons, the Tribunal highlighted the distinction between dismissal and rejection of an appeal. The Tribunal found that the appeal should not have been dismissed solely for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements, especially when the appellant rectified the issue by paying the full pre-deposit amount in cash for filing an appeal before the CESTAT.

Issue 2: Remand for Re-hearing on Merit

Considering that the appellant rectified the defects and paid the entire pre-deposit amount in cash for filing the appeal before the CESTAT, the Tribunal remanded the appeal back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a re-hearing on merit. The order passed by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals) was set aside, allowing the appeal to proceed for re-evaluation on its merits.

The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-hearing on merit, and the previous order is set aside for further determination of issues as per Section 35A(iv) of the Central Excise Act 1944.

---