ORDER Deepak Verma, J. 1. The matter had come up for consideration before this Court on 2.4.1998. On the said date after hearing the counsel for parties a direction was given that interim relief as prayed for by the petitioners would continue till 15.7.1998. Meanwhile both parties were directed to approach the Supreme Court and obtain appropriate orders, failing which the petition was directed to be listed for final hearing on 20th July, 1998. 2. It appears that the petitioners were not able to obtain orders of stay for the Supreme Court. They accordingly filed an application I.A. No. 3871/98 for extension of the stay granted in their favour after 15.7.1998. The said application was rejected by this Court on 30.7.1998 as the petitioners were not able to obtain stay order from the Supreme Court despite the SLP being filed on 13.7.98. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioners reiterated the prayer for grant of time on the pretext that the result of the SLP is not yet known. The very fact that petitioners have not informed the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners the result of the SLP goes to show that they are not seriously prosecuting the matter in the Supreme Court. I, therefore, deem it fit to hear this petition on merits. 3. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging Annexure-P-5 which deals with manner of payment of duty which was found by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Ujjain on his visit to petitioners' factory on 16.2.1998. Or inspection of petitioner's factory on 16.2.1998 he found certain irregularities and illegalities which were being committed by the petitioners in payment of the duty. The Authority, therefore, directed that the payment of duty is not being made in accordance with the order passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short CEGAT) on 5.1.1996 parties being Siddharth Tubes v. Collector, Central Excise. The Authority further directed that if payment of duty is not made as per the direction passed by the CEGAT then proceedings against the petitioner would be initiated under Section 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is this direction which is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 4. Respondents on being noticed have filed their reply in oppugnation. It is this direction which is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 4. Respondents on being noticed have filed their reply in oppugnation. They have submitted that mere filing of SLP against the order of CEGAT would not operate as an order of stay, unless specific order of stay has been passed by the Supreme Court in this regard. They have further submitted that as along as the order of CEGAT has not been set aside and quashed, it is the bounden duty of the petitioners to continue to pay the amount of duty as directed in the order of CEGAT, even if the same is subject matter of challenged in the SLP. They have placed reliance on the judgments of several High Courts to contend that in absence of any specific order of stay, mere filing of appeal would not operate as stay. 5. There does not appear to be any dispute to the legal position that unless a specific order has been passed by the appellate court, mere filing of an appeal would not open to as stay. Petitioners were granted several opportunities to approach the Supreme Court and obtain order of stay which is manifest from the order sheets of this Court. In fact the petition was filed on 17.3.1998 and if the petitioners have not been able to obtain the order of stay for a long period of 6 months this Court cannot grant any further indulgence to the petitioners. 6. As for as merits of the matter are concerned. I find that the impugned order Annexure P-5 does not, in fact decide any right of the petitioners except by giving direction that order passed by CEGAT should be followed in payment of duty failing which action under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 would be initiated. 7. Thus, after having heard the learned Counsel for parties, I find that there is no merit or substance in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed, but with no order as to costs. The interim order of stay which was valid upto 15.7.1998 is directed to be vacated specifically by this order. The respondents would be at liberty to proceed in the matter.