Appeal dismissed for non-compliance with deposit order, restoration denied despite full payment in installments.

The appellant's appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with a stay order requiring full deposit. Despite seeking to deposit the remaining balance in installments, the Tribunal denied the request. Even after depositing the full amount in installments and seeking restoration of the appeal, the Tribunal rejected the application, citing statutory constraints and precedents. The Tribunal emphasized its inability to entertain restoration once an order had been passed, referencing a similar case where restoration was allowed but conditions were not met, leading to dismissal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with stay order and subsequent dismissal of appeal.
2. Request for allowing balance amount to be deposited in installments.
3. Restoration of the appeal after making full deposit.

Issue 1: The appellant failed to fully comply with the stay order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Despite financial difficulties, the appellant only deposited a partial amount as per the order, resulting in non-compliance. The Tribunal granted extensions for compliance, but the appellant failed to meet the requirements by the specified dates. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the mandatory condition of predeposit for appeal remedy, which the appellant did not fulfill.

Issue 2: Subsequently, the appellant sought permission to deposit the remaining balance in installments, totaling Rs. 37 lakhs. However, this request was denied by the Tribunal, as no leniency was granted in this regard. The appellant's plea for installment payments was negatively answered, indicating a strict approach by the Tribunal in this matter.

Issue 3: The appellant, having deposited the balance amount in various installments, approached the Tribunal again seeking restoration of the previously dismissed appeal. The appellant argued that since the full amount had now been deposited, it would be in the interest of justice to hear the appeal. However, the Revenue objected to this proposition.

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the records, acknowledged the appellant's situation with sympathy but emphasized its limitations as a statutory body. The Tribunal stated that it was functus officio after passing an order and therefore could not entertain the restoration of the appeal. The miscellaneous application seeking restoration was rejected based on the Tribunal's statutory constraints.

In rejecting the application, the Tribunal referred to a similar case involving Lindt Exports Vs. Commissioner, which had reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In that case, the Tribunal had allowed restoration of an appeal upon deposit of the predeposit after several years, but the conditions imposed by the courts were not complied with, leading to the dismissal of the prayer for restoration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal, while acknowledging the appellant's circumstances, upheld its decision to reject the restoration application, citing statutory limitations and precedents in similar cases.

---