Tribunal denies ROA recall, upholding pre-deposit rule despite subsequent payment. Legal consistency prevails.

The Tribunal dismissed the ROA applications seeking recall of its order due to non-compliance with the stay order. Despite subsequent deposit by the appellants, the Tribunal held that restoring the appeal would extend the time for pre-deposit granted by higher courts, which was deemed inappropriate. Citing a Gujarat High Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that a subsequent deposit does not entitle restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-compliance. The Tribunal underscored the importance of upholding superior court decisions and legal consistency, ultimately denying the appellants' requests for restoration.

---

---

Issues:
- Recall of Tribunal's order for non-compliance with stay order
- Restoration of appeal after subsequent deposit following dismissal
- Applicability of judgments in similar cases

Recall of Tribunal's Order:
The appellants filed ROA applications seeking the recall of the Tribunal's order, which dismissed their appeals due to non-compliance with the stay order. The Tribunal had directed the appellants to make a pre-deposit, but they failed to do so within the specified time frame. Despite seeking relief from the High Court and the Supreme Court, they were unsuccessful in obtaining an extension for compliance. The Tribunal noted that the appellants did not adhere to the stay order even after multiple opportunities granted by higher courts. The appellants argued for restoration of their appeal citing judgments from the Supreme Court and the Tribunal in similar cases.

Restoration of Appeal After Subsequent Deposit:
The appellants sought restoration of their appeal on the grounds that they had finally managed to deposit the required amount as ordered by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal found that allowing the appeal to be restored would essentially mean extending the time for pre-deposit granted by higher courts, which would be inappropriate and disrespectful. The Tribunal referenced a judgment from the Gujarat High Court, which held that a subsequent deposit does not entitle the appellant for restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-compliance with a stay order. The Tribunal also distinguished the cited judgments from the Supreme Court and the Tribunal, emphasizing that they were passed under specific circumstances and did not establish a binding precedent.

Applicability of Judgments in Similar Cases:
The Tribunal considered arguments from both sides, where the appellants relied on judgments supporting their case while the Departmental Representative cited a judgment from the Gujarat High Court to oppose the restoration of the appeal. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellants failed to comply with the stay order despite multiple opportunities and dismissals at higher court levels. The Tribunal concluded that the ROA applications lacked merit and dismissed them accordingly, emphasizing the importance of upholding decisions made by superior courts and maintaining consistency in legal interpretations.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the ROA applications, reiterating that subsequent deposits after non-compliance with a stay order do not automatically warrant restoration of dismissed appeals. The judgment emphasized the significance of respecting decisions made by higher courts and maintaining consistency in legal interpretations across different cases.

---