Pre-deposit compliance can be cured by later proof of payment, enabling appeal to be heard on merits.

Where an appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit direction under Section 35F, later proof of deposit and a credible explanation for delay made further insistence on deposit unwarranted. The Tribunal treated the challan on record as sufficient compliance, held that the appellant should be heard on merits, and directed an opportunity of hearing. The dismissal for want of pre-deposit was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits without requiring any additional deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction under Section 35F could be set aside when the directed amount had since been deposited and the appellant sought consideration on merits.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the pre-deposit had been made through the challan produced on record and considered the explanation for the delay in making the deposit. In these circumstances, insistence on further deposit was unwarranted, and the appellant was entitled to have the appeal heard on merits after being given an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The dismissal for want of pre-deposit was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits without insisting on any further deposit.

---