Pre-deposit default should not automatically end an appeal when time extension was sought and left unconsidered.

Dismissal of an appeal solely for non-compliance with a pre-deposit direction was found too harsh where the petitioner had sought extension of time and that request had not been considered. The proper course was to examine the request for time and then proceed to decide the appeal on merits rather than terminate it for a procedural default. The dismissal order was set aside and the appeal restored for adjudication on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction, and whether the dismissal order deserved to be quashed with restoration of the appeal.

Analysis: The petitioner had sought extension of time to make the deposit, and the record indicated that this request was not considered. In the circumstances, dismissal of the appeal solely for non-deposit was held to be too harsh and not warranted. The appropriate course was to consider the request for time and deal with the appeal on merits rather than terminate it for the procedural default.

Conclusion: The dismissal order was set aside and the appeal was restored for decision on merits.

---