Pre-deposit compliance and hearing rights: appeal dismissal set aside and matter remanded for decision on merits.

Dismissal of an appeal for alleged non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F was found unsustainable where the appellants had debited the required amount within time in RG 23A, Part-II and informed the Range Superintendent. The record also showed that the appellants were not given an opportunity of hearing before the appeal was dismissed. The impugned order was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits after affording due hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether dismissal of the appeal for alleged non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F was justified, and whether the appellants were denied an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellants had debited the required amount within the stipulated time in RG 23A, Part-II and had intimated the Range Superintendent. The dismissal of the appeal proceeded without considering this compliance and without affording the appellants a hearing. Such dismissal could not be sustained where the interim order had been complied with and the matter had been decided without hearing the appellants.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal under Section 35F was held unjustified. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

---