Pre-deposit compliance under excise law can justify restoration of an appeal once the required amount is later deposited.

Non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act did not justify final rejection where the directed amount was subsequently deposited by challan. The High Court treated the later deposit as sufficient basis to grant another opportunity for hearing, since the appeal had been dismissed only for failure to deposit the stipulated sum and not on the merits. The dismissal order was set aside, and the Tribunal was directed to restore the appeal and decide it on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 warranted interference after the required amount was subsequently deposited.

Analysis: The appeal before the Tribunal had been dismissed only for non-deposit of the amount directed as a condition for hearing. Since the stipulated sum was later produced by challan and stood deposited, the Court considered it appropriate to afford one more opportunity for the appeal to be heard on merits.

Conclusion: The dismissal order was set aside and the Tribunal was directed to restore the appeal and decide it on merits.

---