https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191724 An appeal dismissed for non-deposit of penalty was treated as not finally decided on merits, so the Tribunal could recall that order where justice required and such restoration did not amount to review. A composite appeal challenging both penalty and confiscation could not be rejected solely for failure to meet the penalty deposit requirement, especially where subsequent compliance with pre-deposit, redemption fine, and security for the balance penalty had occurred. The rejection of restoration and the dismissal of the composite appeal were set aside, and the appeal was directed to be restored and heard on merits. en-us Fri, 04 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:47:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191724 An appeal dismissed for non-deposit of penalty was treated as not finally decided on merits, so the Tribunal could recall that order where justice required and such restoration did not amount to review. A composite appeal challenging both penalty and confiscation could not be rejected solely for failure to meet the penalty deposit requirement, especially where subsequent compliance with pre-deposit, redemption fine, and security for the balance penalty had occurred. The rejection of restoration and the dismissal of the composite appeal were set aside, and the appeal was directed to be restored and heard on merits. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 04 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191724