Appeal Dismissed for Non-Compliance with Deposit Order

The Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration of the appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. The appellant failed to make the required deposit within the specified time frame, resulting in the appeal's dismissal. Despite later depositing the amount, the Tribunal held that compliance cannot be discretionary once a deadline is set. Emphasizing the significance of timely adherence to orders, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's request for restoration following a substantial delay in fulfilling the pre-deposit requirement.

---

---

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal due to non-compliance of pre-deposit order.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an application seeking to restore the appeal that was dismissed for non-compliance of pre-deposit. The appellant was directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 85,000 within a specified time frame, but failed to do so. The appeal was subsequently dismissed. The appellant later deposited the amount and filed for restoration. The appellant argued that since the pre-deposit was now made, the appeal should be reinstated. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support the argument. On the other hand, the respondent opposed the application, stating that the Tribunal had lost jurisdiction after dismissing the appeal for non-compliance. The respondent argued that allowing restoration after delayed compliance would defeat the purpose of the pre-deposit order. The respondent also cited previous Tribunal decisions to support this stance.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not complied with the pre-deposit order within the specified time frame. The appellant neither made the deposit nor requested an extension to comply with the order. The appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance, and the appellant only made the deposit after a significant delay. The Tribunal emphasized that compliance cannot be at the discretion of the appellant once a specific time frame is set by the Tribunal. The Tribunal distinguished a cited case where the appellant had made partial deposits and requested an extension, as the current appellant had not made any deposit or sought an extension. The Tribunal found no merit in the restoration application, stating that the appellant had more than enough time to comply but failed to do so. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the application for restoration of the appeal due to non-compliance of the pre-deposit order was dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely compliance with orders and rejected the appellant's argument for restoration after a significant delay in making the deposit.

---