Pre-deposit compliance under Section 35F bars hearing of appeal until required deposits are made.

An appeal under Section 35F could not proceed on merits without compliance with the pre-deposit requirement, unless dispensation was granted on proof of undue hardship. The appellant had been directed to deposit duty, interest and part of the penalty as a condition for hearing, and that direction had already been sustained by the High Court and the Supreme Court. As the appellant still had not complied, dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance was treated as legally justified, and the appeal could move forward only after full deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction was justified, and whether the appeal could be heard without deposit of the amounts required under Section 35F.

Analysis: The appellant had been directed to deposit the duty, interest and a part of the penalty as a condition for hearing of the appeal. That direction had already been sustained by the High Court and the Supreme Court, and the appellant had not complied with it. In such circumstances, the order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance was found to suffer from no infirmity. The Tribunal also noted that Section 35F permits hearing of the appeal only after the required deposit, subject to dispensation on proof of undue hardship, which was not available in the present case beyond the relief already granted.

Conclusion: The dismissal for non-compliance was upheld, and the appellant was directed to make the full deposit before the appeal could proceed on merits.

---