Pre-deposit compliance period runs from receipt of the order for absent parties; premature dismissal for non-compliance was unsustainable.

Where a pre-deposit period is granted to an absent party, the time for compliance runs from receipt of the order, not from the date of its passing. On that basis, dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance before expiry of the stated period was unsustainable because it contradicted the Commissioner (Appeals)' own order. The pre-deposit condition was therefore waived and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the stay application after granting the appellants a personal hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement was sustainable, and whether the appellants were entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and remand for fresh consideration of the stay application.

Analysis: The order granting three weeks for deposit could not be treated as operative from the date of passing when the appellants were absent on that date and received the order later. The period had not expired when the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals, and the dismissal was thus contrary to the Commissioner (Appeals)' own order. In these circumstances, the matter required reconsideration after hearing the appellants.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit requirement was waived, and the appeals were remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration of the stay application after granting an opportunity of personal hearing.

Final Conclusion: The appellants succeeded in obtaining remand for reconsideration of the stay issue, and the dismissal for non-compliance did not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a pre-deposit period is granted to a party absent on the date of order, the period must be reckoned from receipt of the order, and dismissal for non-compliance before expiry of that period is unsustainable.

---