JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J. Heard Ms. S. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr. R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Central Excise. By order dated 6.9.2012, this Court disposed of Central Excise Appeal No.2 of 2012 filed by the appellant by passing the following order :- “We have learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant states that on account of hardship, the amount could not be paid and if some time is given, the appellant will arrange and make the deposit. Without expressing any opinion on merit, we direct that the appeal of the appellant be heard if requisite deposit is made on or before 30th November, 2012. If deposit is not made, the impugned order will stand. The appellant may appear before the appellate Tribunal for further proceedings on 10th December, 2012. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.” Admittedly, the applicant/appellant herein of the said appeal did not ensure compliance of the indulgence granted to him and failed to deposit the required amount on or before 30th March, 2014. It is now almost after more than one-and-half years, he has filed this application praying that he may be granted some more time to deposit the money in compliance to the order dated 6.9.2012. The ground of financial hardship is pleaded in the application. We are afraid, we can entertain and allow this miscellaneous application. Since we granted indulgence to the applicant to deposit the money by 30th November, 2012 and yet he failed to avail this indulgence and waited thereafter for more than one-and-half years to make this application, is enough to dismiss the application for extension of time to deposit. Indeed, we cannot countenance the casual approach of the applicant in not ensuring compliance of the order passed by this Court on 06.09.2012. We are not impressed by the grounds stated in the application for extension of time to deposit the amount. In our view, the remedy of the applicant was to challenge the order dated 6.9.2012 in appeal to the Supreme Court in case if he was not satisfied with the grant of time to deposit the amount. He did not do so for the reasons best known to him. So far as this application is concerned, we do not wish to extend the period to deposit the amount already granted till 30th November, 2012. He did not do so for the reasons best known to him. So far as this application is concerned, we do not wish to extend the period to deposit the amount already granted till 30th November, 2012. It will almost amount to reviewing our order under the garb of extension which is not permissible. Had the applicant deposited the money though late and then sought its extension till the date of deposit, then perhaps, we could have considered the case for condonation of delay and extending time to deposit. Such was not, however, the case of applicant. In the light of the forgoing, this Miscellaneous Case No.409 of 2012 made in Central Excise Appeal No.2 of 2012 decided on 6.9.2012 is found to be devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed in limini. No cost.