Pre-deposit compliance cannot be rejected on a technical mismatch where the directed amount was actually paid.

A pre-deposit directed by the Tribunal was treated as complied with where the amount had been paid by the parent company during merger proceedings, despite separate service tax registrations creating a technical mismatch. The Court held that such a rigid objection should not defeat a hearing on merits when the directed sum had in fact been deposited. The Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance was set aside, and the appeal was restored for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the deposit made by the parent company could be treated as compliance with the pre-deposit condition imposed on the appellant company, and whether dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance should be sustained.

Analysis: The pre-deposit amount ordered by the Tribunal had in fact been paid by the parent company during the pendency of merger proceedings. The Court held that the appellant should not be penalised for the technical mismatch arising from the separate service tax registrations, particularly when the directed amount had been deposited and a rigid approach would deny the appellant a hearing on merits.

Conclusion: The payment made by the parent company was accepted as compliance with the interim pre-deposit order for that purpose, the Tribunal's dismissal order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the amount directed by a pre-deposit order has been paid and the defect is only technical, the compliance should not be rejected so as to defeat adjudication on merits.

---