https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99068 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. en-us Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:47:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99068 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99068