https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33877 The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal due to non-compliance with a pre-deposit order, with the appellant's argument of factory closure since 1998 not being accepted. The Tribunal upheld the application of res judicata, finding that the previous dismissal of the appeal by the Bench barred a fresh appeal. It was determined that the cause of action and relief sought in the previous and current proceedings were not different, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The impugned order was deemed non-appealable as it was issued by the Superintendent and not signed by the Commissioner, directing the appellant to seek an appealable order from departmental authorities. en-us Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33877 The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal due to non-compliance with a pre-deposit order, with the appellant's argument of factory closure since 1998 not being accepted. The Tribunal upheld the application of res judicata, finding that the previous dismissal of the appeal by the Bench barred a fresh appeal. It was determined that the cause of action and relief sought in the previous and current proceedings were not different, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The impugned order was deemed non-appealable as it was issued by the Superintendent and not signed by the Commissioner, directing the appellant to seek an appealable order from departmental authorities. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33877