https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2933 The appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with the stay order's pre-deposit requirement. Despite extensions, the appellants failed to adhere to this condition, leading to the finality of the order. Subsequent restoration applications were rejected for the same reason. The Tribunal emphasized that mere attachment of the property did not fulfill the pre-deposit obligation. The lack of effort to comply with the Tribunal's directives and filing multiple applications without meeting requirements led to the rejection of the restoration application. The history of non-compliance by the applicants, despite property attachments, resulted in the rejection, highlighting the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules. en-us Tue, 16 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2933 The appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with the stay order's pre-deposit requirement. Despite extensions, the appellants failed to adhere to this condition, leading to the finality of the order. Subsequent restoration applications were rejected for the same reason. The Tribunal emphasized that mere attachment of the property did not fulfill the pre-deposit obligation. The lack of effort to comply with the Tribunal's directives and filing multiple applications without meeting requirements led to the rejection of the restoration application. The history of non-compliance by the applicants, despite property attachments, resulted in the rejection, highlighting the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2933