Non-compliance with stay deposit conditions justified dismissal of appeal and rejection of restoration request.

Restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-compliance with a stay order was refused because the appellant neither deposited the duty within the stipulated time nor sought modification or rectification of the stay direction. The Tribunal noted repeated adjournments, absence when the matter was called, and the explicit warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal without further notice. On that factual basis, the dismissal was treated as justified under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, and the appeal's restoration was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for restoration of the appeal, dismissed for failure to comply with the stay order requiring deposit of duty, was liable to be allowed.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the stay application had been adjourned on several occasions, that no one appeared when the matter was taken up on the adjourned date, and that although the appellant claimed to have sent an adjournment request and filed an affidavit, no application for rectification of mistake or modification of the stay order had been filed. The order directing deposit had expressly warned that failure to deposit within the stipulated time would result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. As no compliance was reported and no modification was sought, the dismissal was held to be justified under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The restoration application was rejected and the dismissal of the appeal was sustained.

---