I think you should distinguish between cadences and simple chord progression.
Cadences demark phrase or section endings.
A chord change that does not end a phrase or section is a simple progression.
In tonal harmony there are standard cadences: authentic, half, deceptive, and plagal. Some of the terminology gets applied to chord progressions in a more generic sense with no connection to phrase/section structure. Usage like cadential harmony or deceptive progression are examples.
In modal harmony, both folk music and Medieval/Renaissance music there are cadences other than those in tonal style. Now and then I've seen some names applied to modal cadences, but nothing like the standard naming in tonal style.
You could call ♭VII-I
a modal progression or cadence. I have seen that used as an actual structural ending in folk songs and it such as case cadence would be a appropriate description.
I've not seen ♭III-I
used as a true cadence, at least not commonly, but that kind of thing is a fairly common progression. You can describe the change as a chromatic mediant. It has a very distinctive sound.
Of course you can end a phrase with any kind of chord change. The question only becomes whether or not it's common enough to have a name. If it doesn't have a common name, it doesn't mean you can't use it as an ending.
The textbook Kostka, Harmony contains a classification chart for cadences...
Cadence type First chord Second chord
Authentic Contains leading tone Tonic
Plagal Does not contain leading tone Tonic
Deceptive Contains leading tone Not tonic
Half Does not contain leading tone Not tonic
...it doesn't seem to be widely used, but it's logical. Also, it's followed by this statment...
A still more general but useful method of classifying cadences puts them into two groups: conclusive (authentic and plagal) and progressive (deceptive and half).
By that classification:
♭VII-I
is conclusive, plagal
♭III-I
is conclusive, plagal
...the critical point being there isn't a proper leading tone in those progressions.