Pre-deposit compliance justified remand for merits adjudication, with the limitation question left untouched.

Where the first appellate authority rejected an appeal solely for alleged non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement, the Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded because the pre-deposit had already been made before the further appeal was filed. The appeal had not been decided on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals), so fresh adjudication on merits was directed without reopening limitation. The effect was that the dismissal by the first appellate authority was set aside in substance and the dispute was returned for merits-based consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal should be remanded where the first appellate authority rejected it for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F.

Analysis: The appeal was not decided on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals) and was rejected only for alleged non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement. The Tribunal noted that the pre-deposit had already been made before filing the appeal before it, and therefore found it appropriate to send the matter back for adjudication on merits without reopening the question of limitation.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits, and the appeal succeeded to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal by the first appellate authority was set aside in substance, and the dispute was returned for fresh merits adjudication.

---