https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204169 Compliance with a stay order requiring deposit was treated as mandatory, and the Tribunal held that prolonged non-compliance could not be excused. An appeal earlier dismissed for failure to satisfy the stay condition was not restored because the appellant had still not made the required deposit even after more than two years and an undertaking to comply by the next hearing. The restoration application was therefore rejected, and the appeal remained un-restored. en-us Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 May 2013 14:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204169 Compliance with a stay order requiring deposit was treated as mandatory, and the Tribunal held that prolonged non-compliance could not be excused. An appeal earlier dismissed for failure to satisfy the stay condition was not restored because the appellant had still not made the required deposit even after more than two years and an undertaking to comply by the next hearing. The restoration application was therefore rejected, and the appeal remained un-restored. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204169