ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. This bench by Final Order No. 1486/1999, dated 18-6-1999 disposed of the captioned appeal with the direction that the appellants shall deposit Rs. 2 lakhs within three months and that, subject to such deposit, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall take up the assessee’s appeal and decide the same on merits after giving them an opportunity of being heard. It appears, the amount was not deposited by the party within the stipulated time. The party approached the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 16841 of 1999 against the above final order of the Tribunal. The challenge against the said final order was not sustained by the High Court. The court, however, allowed further period of two months to the party to make pre-deposit with the Commissioner (Appeals) so as to enable the latter to decide the appeal on merits. Again, the party did not deposit the above amount within the period stipulated by the High Court. Their counsel submits today that the amount was deposited on 13-2-2004 and, therefore, the captioned appeal should be restored and disposed of afresh with appropriate directions to the Commissioner (Appeals). This prayer is opposed by learned SDR, who submits that the present application for restoration of the appeal is not maintainable inasmuch as this Bench had not dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F or otherwise. The final order dated 18-6-1999 was an order of final disposal of the appeal with appropriate directions.
2. After considering the submissions, we find that the Hon’ble High Court’s direction has not been complied with by the applicants. As per that direction, the party should have deposited the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs with the Commissioner (Appeals) within a further period of two months. This period expired in 2001. The party, instead of applying to the High Court for further extension of time for depositing the amount, filed the present application in the year 2004 for a relief which is not liable to be allowed at this point of time. The proper course of action for the party is to approach the Hon’ble High Court for further extension of time or for condonation of the delay of the deposit already made. In the circumstances, this application is rejected.