Restoration of appeals after final resolution of the underlying dispute made the pre-deposit direction unnecessary.

Delay in filing the restoration applications was condoned because the underlying controversy had already been finally decided in favour of the assessees by the same Bench in their own case. On that basis, the earlier dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order was recalled, as continued insistence on the pre-deposit was considered unnecessary once the substantive issue no longer survived. The appeals were restored to their original numbers and the pre-deposit direction was held not to survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the restoration applications should be condoned and the dismissed appeals restored to their original numbers, in view of the subsequent final decision on the underlying issue in favour of the assessees.

Analysis: The delay was found to be justified and was condoned. The earlier dismissal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order was reconsidered because the controversy in the appeals had already been finally resolved by the same Bench in the assessees' own case. In that situation, insistence on the earlier pre-deposit was held unnecessary.

Conclusion: The restoration applications were allowed, the earlier dismissal order was recalled, the appeals were restored, and the pre-deposit direction was held not to survive.

---