https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235434 The Tribunal considered whether an appeal could proceed without compliance with a pre-deposit direction and whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly required deposit of 25% of the service tax demand. Finding no appearance by the appellant and no basis to treat the pre-deposit order as erroneous, it declined interference and directed deposit of Rs. 2,25,000 within four weeks. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was to be heard on merits only after compliance, and non-compliance would vacate the order and lead to dismissal of the appeal. en-us Wed, 05 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:23:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235434 The Tribunal considered whether an appeal could proceed without compliance with a pre-deposit direction and whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly required deposit of 25% of the service tax demand. Finding no appearance by the appellant and no basis to treat the pre-deposit order as erroneous, it declined interference and directed deposit of Rs. 2,25,000 within four weeks. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was to be heard on merits only after compliance, and non-compliance would vacate the order and lead to dismissal of the appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 05 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235434