https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107574 Restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit direction requires a specific and satisfactory explanation showing sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal held that a vague, unsupported explanation was inadequate, particularly where the appellant had already been given sufficient opportunity and had assured compliance within time. Subsequent deposit of the balance amount did not, by itself, justify recall of the dismissal order. The earlier dismissal for breach of the pre-deposit condition was therefore maintained and restoration was refused. en-us Tue, 10 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:57:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107574 Restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit direction requires a specific and satisfactory explanation showing sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal held that a vague, unsupported explanation was inadequate, particularly where the appellant had already been given sufficient opportunity and had assured compliance within time. Subsequent deposit of the balance amount did not, by itself, justify recall of the dismissal order. The earlier dismissal for breach of the pre-deposit condition was therefore maintained and restoration was refused. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 10 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107574