( 1 ) THE petitioner has sought a mandamus commanding the Commissioner, Customs and Central excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad, respondent No. 2 to decide its applications for stay of the recovery of the amount. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY, stated the facts, are that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar and molasses at its factory. The Deputy Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Muzaffar nagar made the demand of Central Excise as well imposed penalty by different orders. The petitioner preferred 7 appeals before respondent No. 2. The appeals were filed between the period 19. 2. 2000 and 11. 12. 2001 along with the application that the Appellate Tribunal may dispense with the deposit subject to such conditions, as he may deem fit. Section 35f of the central Excise Act, 1944 reads as under: section 35f. Deposit, pending appeal, of duty demanded or penalty levied.--Where in any appeal under this Chapter, the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty demanded in respect of goods which are not under the control of Central Excise authorities or any penalty levied under this Act, the person desirous of appealing against such decision or order shall, pending the appeal, deposit with the adjudicating authority the duty demanded or the penalty levied: provided that where in any particular case, the [commissioner (Appeals)] or the Appellate tribunal is of opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, the [commissioner (Appeals)] or, as the case may be, the Appellate tribunal, may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as he or it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interests of revenue. ( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that while the appeals and applications for interim stay are pending, the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Muzaffarnagar, respondent No. 3 passed an order to detain the goods of the petitioner and further a notice has been given to pay a sum of Rs. 16,16,731 within ten days. ( 4 ) THE Court granted time to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents to obtain instructions on 21. 1. 2002. Learned Standing Counsel has shown to us the letter addressed to him indicating the reason why the applications have not been disposed of. 16,16,731 within ten days. ( 4 ) THE Court granted time to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents to obtain instructions on 21. 1. 2002. Learned Standing Counsel has shown to us the letter addressed to him indicating the reason why the applications have not been disposed of. As the letter has been given to us, we are incorporating the reasons given by him as under: office OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS): CUSTOMS and CENTRAL EXCISE, ghaziabad. C. No. 119-CE/appl/mrt/2000date : 21. 1. 02 to shri Ganga Ram Gupta central Govt. Standing Counsel, allahabad sir, subject: Writ Petition filed by M/s. Monnet Industries Ltd. , Muzaffamagar (UP.)Please refer to your telephonic conversation with me today morning on the above matter. 2. As told orally, the appellants were given an opportunity of personal hearing on 15. 5. 2001 in respect of all the seven cases. Neither the appellants nor their counsel attended the personal hearing on the said date. Even no request from the appellant towards adjournment was received in this office. Hence no decision on their applications for waiver of pre-deposit (stay) filed under section 35f of Central Excise Act, 1944, could be taken. 3. There are 3657 appeals lying pending in this office till date among which 3379cases are for stay of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged. Approximately 175-180stay petitions are being received per month. With such a huge pendency and regular inflow, it is not possible to finalise all the cases so quickly. 4. It is clear that due to non co-operative attitude of the appellant to attend the personal hearing the stay applications could not be decided. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, personal hearing has again been fixed in these seven cases on 30. 1. 2002 and the same will be decided on priority after they attend the personal hearing. Yours faithfully, sd/- Illegible (S. R. HASSAN)Sd/- Illegible k. A. Siddiqui 21. 1. 2002 superintendent central Excise Appeals)Allahabad. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Circular No. 396/29/98-CX, dated 2. 6. 1998 from the Government of India, which had taken into consideration the directions of the Mumbai high Court, in which the view was taken that the stay application should be disposed of within one month. The said circular is quoted below: circular No. 396/29/98-CX, dated 2. 6. 1998 [from F. No. 201/04/98-CX. 6. 1998 from the Government of India, which had taken into consideration the directions of the Mumbai high Court, in which the view was taken that the stay application should be disposed of within one month. The said circular is quoted below: circular No. 396/29/98-CX, dated 2. 6. 1998 [from F. No. 201/04/98-CX. 6] government of India ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. Subject: Central Excise--Whether coercive measures to recover duty demanded as result of adjudication till such time as the appeal/stay applications filed by the has been disposed of by commissioner (Appeals) be taken--Regarding. On the question of recovery of dues during pendency of stay application before the commissioner (Appeals), the matter was examined by the Board and necessary instructions were issued vide Circular No. 23/90/cx. 6, dated 12. 12. 90 issued from F. NO. 209/107/89-CX. 6 and circular No. 16/92-CX. 6, dated 12. 11. 92 issued from F. No. 208/59/92-CX. 6. According to these instructions, Central Excise Officers were to allow a period of three months from the date of decision for payment of dues adjudicated before resorting to coercive measures to recover such dues. However, if the stay application is rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) even before the lapse of time of three months, recovery proceedings should be initiated immediately. The commissioner (Appeals) were also directed to dispose of stay application within the period of two months in case the Commissioner (Appeals) was not in a position to dispose of the main appeal within the same time frame. 2. Recently, the Mumbai High Court has ordered, that Commissioner (Appeals) may be directed to dispose of stay application within the specified time-limit and during the pendency of stay application no coercive action should be taken to realise the arrears of revenue. 3. Keeping the aforesaid in view, the Board has decided that no coercive action should be taken to realise the dues till the disposal of the stay application by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the commissioner (Appeals) must dispose of the stay application within one month of its filing. Similar circular dated 30. 3. 1999 is to the same effect. ( 6 ) THE Commissioner has observed that approximately 175-180 stay petitions are being received per month and it is not possible to finalise all the cases. Similar circular dated 30. 3. 1999 is to the same effect. ( 6 ) THE Commissioner has observed that approximately 175-180 stay petitions are being received per month and it is not possible to finalise all the cases. The fact that the case cannot be disposed of but there is no justification for not deciding the stay application within one month from the date of its filing. The authority has to examine prima facie case and pass appropriate order. Section 35f provides that the appeal is entertainable only if the amount is deposited as directed in the order under appeal and it is for the authority concerned to waive this condition as he may deem fit. The intention of the Legislature is that the amount is to be deposited and it is only when the authority has passed an order of the waiver, on such terms and conditions as he deems fit, the appeal becomes entertainable for hearing of the matter. If the application for stay is not decided, the appellant may not deposit the amount and in that case the authority concerned is also responsible for loss of revenue by not deciding the application under Section 35f of the Act. Learned Standing Counsel further indicates that 15. 1. 2001 was fixed for hearing but the appellant was not present and even no request by the appellant was made for the adjournment and now 30. 1. 2002 has been fixed. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the applications of the petitioner by 30. 1. 2002. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of finally with the directions given above. ( 9 ) LET a certified copy of this order be made available to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 24 hours. .