Pre-deposit default under excise law cannot sustain dismissal once the required amount is later deposited and merits must be heard.

An appeal dismissed solely for non-compliance with a pre-deposit direction under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be sustained once the directed amount was subsequently deposited. The later deposit removed the basis for dismissal for default, so the appellate forum was required to consider the substantive grounds of challenge on merits. The Madras High Court accordingly set aside the dismissal order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction was liable to be set aside and the appeal remanded for fresh disposal on merits.

Analysis: The appeal had been dismissed solely for failure to comply with the pre-deposit direction under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The record showed that the directed amount had subsequently been deposited, removing the basis for sustaining the dismissal for default. In these circumstances, the impugned order could not stand and the appellate forum was required to examine the main appeal on merits.

Conclusion: The dismissal for non-compliance was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---