ORDER R.S. Garg, J. 1. This order shall dispose of W.P. No. 1832/99 (Gilt Pack Limited and Anr. v. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs and 1833/990 Gilt Pack Limited and Anr. v. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs. 2. Undisputedly, the petitioner being aggrieved by the fixation of the duty and imposition of the penalty has preferred two appeals before the appellate authority. Alongwith the appeals, application under Section 35F of the Act was filed seeking exemption from pre-deposit. Learned Appellate authority after considering the question raised before it came to the conclusion that if no stay is granted in favour of the petitioner he is not going to suffer irreparably, rejected the application and directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount within a period of three weeks from the date of the order and also directed that if within the said period the amount is not deposited the appeal pending before the appellate authority shall stand dismissed without reference to the authority. 3. The petitioner in each of the petition being aggrieved by the orders passed by the appellate authority has contended that less realizing that the petitioner is a sick company and proceedings under BIFR are already going on and the authority also without appreciating that if from the sick company the amount is required to be deposited, it would not only crush financial status of the company but on the other hand would create number of problems. An advance copy in the matter was supplied to the learned senior standing counsel who has appeared before the court and has made his submissions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing strong reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India, 1998 (103) E.L.T. 5 submits that in case where a company has already been declared as a sick unit by BIFR, the condition of pre-deposit should ordinarily be waived. Learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand submits that as the order passed by the appellate authority shows application of mind and consideration of the facts, this court should not interfere in the matter at this stage. 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand submits that as the order passed by the appellate authority shows application of mind and consideration of the facts, this court should not interfere in the matter at this stage. 5. After hearing the parties, this court is of the opinion that if the petitioner company has been declared a sick industry by BIFR then by not staying the conditions of pre-deposit the order asking the petitioner to deposit the amount in full is likely to create various complications and would also create mischief of irreparable injury to the petitioner. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the application filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed to a limited extent. Within three weeks from today in each of the case the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the amount as determined by the assessing authority. If such deposit is made, the petitioner shall be entitled to be heard on merits of the matter by the appellate authority. If because of the non-compliance of the order passed by the appellate authority the appeal stands dismissed it would be restored back to its original number and shall be heard and decided by the authority after giving due and proper opportunities to the parties. 6. The petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. 7. C.C. as per rules to the parties within a week.