https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331278 The Tribunal dismissed the ROA applications seeking recall of its order due to non-compliance with the stay order. Despite subsequent deposit by the appellants, the Tribunal held that restoring the appeal would extend the time for pre-deposit granted by higher courts, which was deemed inappropriate. Citing a Gujarat High Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that a subsequent deposit does not entitle restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-compliance. The Tribunal underscored the importance of upholding superior court decisions and legal consistency, ultimately denying the appellants' requests for restoration. en-us Mon, 18 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:21:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331278 The Tribunal dismissed the ROA applications seeking recall of its order due to non-compliance with the stay order. Despite subsequent deposit by the appellants, the Tribunal held that restoring the appeal would extend the time for pre-deposit granted by higher courts, which was deemed inappropriate. Citing a Gujarat High Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that a subsequent deposit does not entitle restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-compliance. The Tribunal underscored the importance of upholding superior court decisions and legal consistency, ultimately denying the appellants' requests for restoration. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 18 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331278