https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268340 The appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with a stay order requiring a specific deposit. The appellant sought restoration after a significant delay, citing financial difficulties. The appellant argued for restoration despite the delayed deposit, emphasizing the deposit had been made. The Revenue opposed restoration, citing tribunal considerations and court decisions against restoring appeals due to belated compliance. The Tribunal recognized its authority to restore appeals but rejected restoration due to unjustifiable delay in depositing the directed amount, despite the appellant's financial challenges. The ongoing BIFR and High Court proceedings were deemed insufficient reasons for non-compliance. en-us Mon, 07 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:28:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268340 The appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with a stay order requiring a specific deposit. The appellant sought restoration after a significant delay, citing financial difficulties. The appellant argued for restoration despite the delayed deposit, emphasizing the deposit had been made. The Revenue opposed restoration, citing tribunal considerations and court decisions against restoring appeals due to belated compliance. The Tribunal recognized its authority to restore appeals but rejected restoration due to unjustifiable delay in depositing the directed amount, despite the appellant's financial challenges. The ongoing BIFR and High Court proceedings were deemed insufficient reasons for non-compliance. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 07 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268340