Statutory pre-deposit defects cured before decision cannot justify rejecting an appeal without a fair opportunity to rectify them.

Full statutory pre-deposit and proof of deposit are procedural requirements for filing an appeal. Where the appellant cures a pre-deposit shortfall before the appellate authority passes its order, rejection without an adequate opportunity to rectify the deficiency is inconsistent with principles of natural justice. The appeal should therefore be heard on merits after the shortfall is made good, rather than rejected solely for the earlier pre-deposit deficiency.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal could be rejected for non-payment of the full statutory pre-deposit when the shortfall had been deposited before the appellate order and the appellant was not afforded an opportunity to cure the defect.

Analysis: The pre-deposit requirement and proof thereof were treated as procedural requirements for filing the appeal. The shortfall was made good before the appellate authority passed its order. Rejecting the appeal without providing an adequate opportunity to rectify the deficiency was inconsistent with the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The appellate authority could not reject the appeal on the pre-deposit deficiency after the shortfall had been cured before the appellate order; the appeal must be heard on merits.

---