Pre-deposit compliance under Section 35F was held sufficient, allowing restoration of the appeal for merits hearing.

The amended pre-deposit regime under Section 35F was applied to appeals filed after the amendment, and a deposit of 10% of the litigated amount was treated as sufficient compliance. On that basis, dismissal for non-compliance was not sustained, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's deposit of 10% of the litigated amount satisfied the pre-deposit requirement so as to warrant restoration of the appeal and a decision on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis: The amended pre-deposit regime under Section 35F was treated as applicable for appeals coming before the Tribunal after the amendment. Since the appellant had already deposited 10% of the litigated amount, the deposit was considered sufficient for hearing the appeal on merits. Following the same approach adopted in a similar matter, the order of dismissal for non-compliance was not sustained.

Conclusion: The deposit was held sufficient, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration on merits before the Commissioner (Appeals).

---