Mandatory pre-deposit compliance cured during proceedings led to quashing of the rejection order and restoration of the appeal.

Mandatory pre-deposit under the indirect tax appeal framework was required before the appeal could be entertained, but the earlier shortfall was later cured by deposit of the balance amount during the proceedings. Once that statutory compliance was completed, the basis for rejecting the appeal for want of pre-deposit no longer survived. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the appeal was restored to the appellate authority for disposal on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was liable to be allowed by quashing the order rejecting the appeal for want of pre-deposit and by restoring the appeal on the file of the appellate authority after compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement.

Analysis: The appeal was required to satisfy the mandatory pre-deposit prescribed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The record showed that the petitioner had deposited the balance amount during the pendency of the proceedings, thereby curing the earlier shortfall. In view of the subsequent compliance, the basis for refusing to entertain the appeal no longer survived.

Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the appeal was restored to the file of the first respondent for disposal on merits in accordance with law.

---