Pre-deposit compliance and limitation plea required fresh appellate consideration before merits could be decided.

An appeal dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement was held fit for remand because the dismissal was not supported by a proper examination of the pre-deposit issue. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant's limitation plea had not been considered by the lower authorities, and the reference to merits was made without real discussion of the substantive grounds. The appropriate course was to direct compliance with the pre-deposit requirement and then have the Commissioner (Appeals) hear and decide the appeal on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement warranted interference and remand for decision on merits.

Analysis: The appellate authority had dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of pre-deposit, though it had also adverted to merits without any real discussion of the substantive grounds. The Tribunal found that the issue of pre-deposit had not been properly examined, and that the appellant's contention on limitation had also not been considered by the lower authorities. In these circumstances, the proper course was to require a deposit and direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear and decide the appeal on merits after compliance.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision on merits after the appellant complied with the directed pre-deposit.

---