https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106470 A second restoration application seeking revival of an appeal dismissed for failure to comply with a pre-deposit order was held not maintainable because an earlier restoration plea on the same ground had already been considered and rejected; entertaining it again would amount to impermissible review. The prior rejection was treated as a merits-based decision, not a dismissal for want of prosecution. The Tribunal also held that departmental adjustment of refund or arrear amounts did not, by itself, constitute compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal dismissal for non-compliance therefore remained undisturbed. en-us Fri, 02 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:46:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106470 A second restoration application seeking revival of an appeal dismissed for failure to comply with a pre-deposit order was held not maintainable because an earlier restoration plea on the same ground had already been considered and rejected; entertaining it again would amount to impermissible review. The prior rejection was treated as a merits-based decision, not a dismissal for want of prosecution. The Tribunal also held that departmental adjustment of refund or arrear amounts did not, by itself, constitute compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal dismissal for non-compliance therefore remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106470