Dismissed appeal due to non-compliance with pre-deposit order; Res judicata applied; Appeal barred by previous dismissal.

The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal due to non-compliance with a pre-deposit order, with the appellant's argument of factory closure since 1998 not being accepted. The Tribunal upheld the application of res judicata, finding that the previous dismissal of the appeal by the Bench barred a fresh appeal. It was determined that the cause of action and relief sought in the previous and current proceedings were not different, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The impugned order was deemed non-appealable as it was issued by the Superintendent and not signed by the Commissioner, directing the appellant to seek an appealable order from departmental authorities.

---

---

Issues:
- Maintainability of appeal due to non-compliance with pre-deposit order
- Res judicata in relation to the appeal dismissal by the Tribunal
- Applicability of res judicata based on the cause of action and relief prayed
- Appealability of the order issued by the Superintendent

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against a letter from the Superintendent stating that the appeal to the Commissioner was not maintainable due to non-compliance with a pre-deposit order. The appellant argued that their factory was closed since 1998, preventing them from making the deposit on time. The consultant cited cases where delays of several years were condoned.

2. The Departmental Representative (DR) highlighted a previous order by the Bench dismissing an appeal against the same impugned order, stating res judicata applied as there was no reasonable ground for delay. The DR argued that since the appeal was already dismissed by the Tribunal, a fresh appeal could not be heard.

3. The consultant contended that there was no res judicata as the cause of action and relief sought in the previous and present proceedings were different. Various decisions were cited to support this argument.

4. The DR distinguished the citations provided by the consultant, stating they related to civil suits and were not applicable to the impugned order, which involved a show-cause notice covering all aspects. The DR argued that the cause of action in civil suits differs from that in the present case.

5. The Tribunal found that the impugned order was not appealable as it was issued by the Superintendent within the appellant's unit and was not signed by the Commissioner. Since there was no appealable order from a competent authority, the appellant was directed to approach departmental authorities for an appealable order. Consequently, the stay application and appeal were dismissed.

---