Pre-deposit requirement set aside, with appeals remanded for merits hearing without insisting on deposit.

The Tribunal held that insisting on pre-deposit as a condition for hearing the appeals was unnecessary on the facts, and the appeals should be decided on merits without such deposit. The orders requiring deposit of 50% of the duty demanded were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision without insisting on any pre-deposit and after giving the appellants a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The connected miscellaneous application was treated as infructuous once the appeal was taken up for final hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders insisting on pre-deposit for hearing the appeals were sustainable and whether the matters should be remanded for decision without such pre-deposit.

Analysis: The appeals arose from dismissal for non-compliance with stay orders requiring deposit of 50% of the duty demanded. The only substantive question decided was whether, in the circumstances, any pre-deposit should have been insisted upon. The Tribunal accepted the appellants' contention that the requirement of pre-deposit was unnecessary and found that the appeals should be heard on merits without such insistence. The connected miscellaneous application was treated as infructuous because the appeal itself was taken up for final hearing.

Conclusion: The orders insisting on pre-deposit were set aside and the matters were remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide them without insisting on any pre-deposit and after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants.

---