Cash pre-deposit cannot be replaced with bank guarantees without justification; non-compliance led to dismissal of the appeals.

A Tribunal will not ordinarily modify a cash pre-deposit direction by allowing bank guarantees where no sufficient justification is shown, especially where bank guarantees may create administrative and encashment difficulties. Applying that approach, the request to substitute the ordered cash deposit with bank guarantees was rejected. Because the pre-deposit order was not complied with, the connected appeals could not be entertained further and were dismissed for non-compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the direction requiring cash pre-deposit could be modified by permitting substitution with bank guarantees, and whether the appeals could survive non-compliance with the Tribunal's pre-deposit order.

Analysis: The Tribunal found no justification for converting the ordered cash deposit into bank guarantees. It noted that bank guarantees entail unnecessary administrative follow-up and encashment difficulties, and referred to the disapproval of the bank guarantee system in the cited Supreme Court decision. On the facts and circumstances, the request for modification of the stay direction was rejected. As the ordered deposit was not complied with, the connected appeals could not be entertained further.

Conclusion: The request to substitute cash pre-deposit with bank guarantees was rejected, and the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained no relief from the pre-deposit requirement, and the proceedings ended in dismissal for failure to comply with the Tribunal's direction.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-deposit direction will not ordinarily be modified to permit bank guarantees where the Tribunal finds no sufficient justification, and non-compliance with such a direction can result in dismissal of the appeal.

---