Pre-deposit dismissal improper where earlier orders extended notification benefit to the same goods; matter must be decided on merits

Dismissal of an appeal solely for failure to make a directed pre-deposit was treated as improper where the same Commissioner had earlier extended the notification benefit to the same goods manufactured by the appellant. The matter was not decided on merits, and the prior orders on identical goods were relevant to the deposit issue. The dismissal order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with a direction that the Commissioner decide the dispute on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) could be dismissed for failure to make the directed deposit when the same authority had earlier extended the notification benefit to the same goods.

Analysis: The appeal was not decided on merits but was rejected only because the appellant had not deposited the entire duty. The Tribunal noted that the same Commissioner had already, in earlier orders involving the same goods manufactured by the appellant, extended the benefit of the notification. In that background, dismissal of the appeal solely for non-compliance with the deposit direction was held to be improper.

Conclusion: The dismissal order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with a direction that the Commissioner decide the matter on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.

---