Court restores appeals emphasizing statutory appeal rights, grants opportunity for case presentation, stressing due process.

The Court set aside the impugned order and restored the appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration, emphasizing that the statutory right of appeal cannot be denied solely based on a belated payment. The petitioners were granted the opportunity to present their case, with the Court directing the Commissioner to issue a notice of hearing. The judgment underscores the importance of upholding due process and not restricting appeal rights based solely on timing of payment, particularly in cases involving financial constraints.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioners' non-compliance with pre-deposit order, delay in payment, restoration of appeals, consideration of interest payment.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to four petitions arising from a common order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeals due to non-compliance with a pre-deposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioners, represented by Mr. P.R. Nanavati, argued that they faced financial constraints, leading to a delay of 11 days in complying with the pre-deposit order, despite a six-week extension granted by the Court in an earlier round of litigation. On the other hand, Mr. Malkan, representing the respondents, suggested the Court consider whether the petitioners should be liable to pay interest for the delay.

The Court acknowledged the petitioners' eventual compliance with the pre-deposit order and emphasized that the statutory right of appeal cannot be denied solely based on a belated payment. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, restoring the appeals to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration. The Court directed the Commissioner to issue a notice of hearing, allowing the petitioners an opportunity to present their case, following which an appropriate order on the merits of the controversy should be passed.

Ultimately, the petitions were allowed to the extent of setting aside the impugned order and restoring the appeals, with no order as to costs. The judgment highlights the importance of ensuring due process and not unduly restricting appeal rights based solely on timing of payment, especially when financial constraints are involved.

---