Delay condonation and natural justice required fresh consideration where a time-barred appeal was rejected without hearing.

An appeal rejected as time-barred was set aside because the delay condonation request had not been heard and the explanation for delay had not been considered. The appellate authority was required to give the appellant an opportunity to present its case and to pass a reasoned order on condonation. The record also showed that a prior High Court direction to exhaust the departmental remedy was not addressed in the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision on condonation after hearing the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal rejected as time-barred should be restored for fresh consideration of the application for condonation of delay.

Analysis: The appellate authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred without granting a hearing on the delay condonation request and without dealing with the explanation offered for the delay. The record also indicated that the High Court had directed exhaustion of the departmental remedy, but that aspect was not considered in the impugned order. In these circumstances, the matter required reconsideration after giving the appellant an opportunity to present its case and after passing a reasoned order on the condonation application.

Conclusion: The rejection for limitation was set aside and the matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) to decide the condonation application afresh after hearing the appellant.

---