Pre-deposit compliance and diligence determine whether a dismissed appeal can be recalled after delayed payment.

An application to recall dismissal of an appeal for non-compliance with a pre-deposit direction was rejected because the appellant deposited the amount only after a substantial delay, and only after notice under Section 87B of the Finance Act, 1994 had been issued. No extension of time was sought during the intervening period, and the delay showed lack of diligence in complying with the order. On these facts, the request for recall and restoration of the appeal was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application to recall the order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction was liable to be allowed.

Analysis: The appeal had been dismissed in default after the appellant failed to comply with the pre-deposit order. The requested deposit was made only after a substantial delay and after notice under Section 87B of the Finance Act, 1994 was issued. No application for extension of time had been moved during the intervening period, and the delay reflected lack of diligence in pursuing compliance.

Conclusion: The request for recall and restoration of the appeal was rejected.

---