Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 3.9.2001 in No.484 & 485/2001 dated 22.1.2002 in No.56 & 57 of 2002 passed by the Customs and Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, southern Zonal Branch, Chennai and order dated 5.9.2002 in No.C.No.IV/16/45/2002/TRC passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent herein to refund the excise duty paid by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a firm carrying on the work of manufacturing of re-enforced concrete cement poles (RCC poles) at Coimbatore RCC yard on contract basis to the first respondent/ Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle. Based on a contract and on agreement in Form (K2), the petitioner carried out the work of manufacturing RCC Poles and supplied the same to the first respondent. The Central Excise Department demanded duty on the ground that the manufacture of RCC poles is liable to payment of excise duty. 3. From the facts as culled out from the petition and the orders enclosed, it appears that two appellate orders were passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Trichy in A.No.74 of 2000 dated 18.10.2000 and OIA.No.63 of 2000, dated 28.9.2000 demanding duty. Challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), in Appeal No.E.179 and 184 of 2001 along with stay application Nos.484 and 485 of 2001. While considering the stay applications, an order was passed on 3.9.2001. The Tribunal directed the writ petitioner/ appellant viz., (i) P.V.Roju and Sons to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- and Shri R. Velusamy to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/-within three months from the date of receipt of that order and on such deposit, the balance amount of duty will be waived and recovery will be stayed. For reporting compliance, the matter was directed to be listed on 24.12.2001. Thereafter, the matter was listed and a final order was passed on 22.1.2002 in Order No. 56 and 57 of 2002 by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal for non compliance of the interim order in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. For reporting compliance, the matter was directed to be listed on 24.12.2001. Thereafter, the matter was listed and a final order was passed on 22.1.2002 in Order No. 56 and 57 of 2002 by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal for non compliance of the interim order in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the Deputy Commissioner (Tax Recovery Cell) issued notice on 5.9.2002 calling upon the petitioner to pay the duty failing which, action will be initiated to attach the property of the defaulters for recovery of Customs dues. At this point of time, the writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Tribunal. 4. The first relief sought for in the writ petition is to set aside the order of the Tribunal and the consequential relief is to direct the first respondent/ Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to refund the excise duty paid. The writ petition as such is totally misconceived. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) confirming the excise duty demand on manufactured goods. A conditional order was passed and that has not been complied with and therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non compliance of the said order in terms of the Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. No reason has been stated in the writ petition as to why the conditional order was not complied with. Unless the petitioner complies with the conditional order and succeeds before the Tribunal on the merits of the appeal, the question of seeking a direction against the first respondent to refund the excise duty paid does not arise. In any event, the writ petitioner has filed the writ petition in a slipshod manner. The original order in Appeal No.74 of 2000 dated 18.10.2000 and order in appeal No.63 of 2000 dated 28.9.2000 which was the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal has not been enclosed and K2 agreement has also not been enclosed. In the typed set of papers, the petitioner relies upon the paragraph 3 of the circular dated 21.8.1997, stating that the claim of refund/ reimbursement is justified. In the typed set of papers, the petitioner relies upon the paragraph 3 of the circular dated 21.8.1997, stating that the claim of refund/ reimbursement is justified. Paragraph-3 of the circular reads as follows:- "(3) Wherever the contractors have paid the Central Excise Duty without any alternative, in such cases, it may be reimbursed to them by the Board based on the actual excise vouchers paid by them. In no case, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board shall pay the Central Excise duty straightaway to the Central Excise Authorities." This plea is misconceived and not in consonance with the circular. 5. Paragraph 1 of the Circular is contrary to the above said plea. The Electricity Board has indicated the procedure to be followed in case of tenders for manufacturing of poles so as to minimise the payment of central excise duty by the department and instead to ensure payment of Central Excise duty through contractors. Paragraph 1 of the circular reads as follows:- "(1) The procedures outlined below should be adopted for tenders for manufacturing of poles to minimise payment of central excise duty. i. to include in the tender condition and specification that the prospective tenderers should be having S.S.I. Certificate; ii. the contractor shall be responsible to pay the Central Excise Duty and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board shall pay only the accepted rates as per the agreement; iii. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board's pole Yards shall be leased out for pole casting work to the contractors; iv. The K2 Agreement should also incorporate the above conditions; v. The other conditions inforce will stand to continue." 6. It is therefore clear that at no point of time, the Board thought it fit to take upon themselves the burden and responsibility to pay the Central Excise Duty. On the contrary, it has been specifically mentioned that the contract should incorporate the condition that the responsibility to pay the Central Excise duty should be fixed on the Contractor and not on the Board. The petitioner is bound by contract. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the Circular gives him benefit also does not merit consideration and such a plea is misconceived. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal for non compliance of its interim order. It clearly establishes that the petitioner is not diligent or serious in prosecuting the matter. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the Circular gives him benefit also does not merit consideration and such a plea is misconceived. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal for non compliance of its interim order. It clearly establishes that the petitioner is not diligent or serious in prosecuting the matter. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant further indulgence in this matter. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.