Pre-deposit non-compliance bars restoration where later departmental orders do not revive an appeal dismissed for default.

An appeal dismissed for failure to comply with a pre-deposit direction could not be restored merely because the Commissioner later passed a subsequent order. The Tribunal had already found no prima facie case, directed deposit within the stipulated time, and rejected modification; the deposit was not made, and the earlier conditional liberty for restoration was also not satisfied. A later departmental order did not nullify the Tribunal's earlier directions or revive an appeal dismissed for default. The appropriate challenge lay before the higher appellate forum, not through restoration on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal, earlier dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction, could be restored on the ground of a subsequent order passed by the Commissioner.

Analysis: The Tribunal had earlier found no prima facie case and directed deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs within the stipulated time. The amount was not deposited, the modification request had already been rejected, and the appeal stood dismissed for non-compliance. The liberty earlier granted for restoration was conditional upon deposit, which also was not made. A later order passed by the Commissioner could not render the Tribunal's earlier orders inapplicable or revive an appeal already dismissed for default. The proper remedy against the stay order or dismissal for non-compliance was before the higher appellate forum, not restoration on the basis of a subsequent departmental order.

Conclusion: The request for restoration of the appeal was not maintainable and was rejected.

---