https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183395 Failure to comply with a pre-deposit direction under Section 35F justified dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal had directed deposit of a specified sum within eight weeks and required compliance to be reported, but the appellant made no deposit. At the return date, the appellant merely asserted that a writ petition had been filed in the High Court and sought more time, yet produced no documentary proof and had no counsel present to substantiate the claim. In the absence of compliance or satisfactory evidence supporting extension of time, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of compliance with the deposit requirement. en-us Fri, 11 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jun 2016 14:18:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183395 Failure to comply with a pre-deposit direction under Section 35F justified dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal had directed deposit of a specified sum within eight weeks and required compliance to be reported, but the appellant made no deposit. At the return date, the appellant merely asserted that a writ petition had been filed in the High Court and sought more time, yet produced no documentary proof and had no counsel present to substantiate the claim. In the absence of compliance or satisfactory evidence supporting extension of time, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of compliance with the deposit requirement. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183395