JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The appeal by the Revenue arises from an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 18 March 2014 on an application for waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal has recorded that out of a total demand duty of Rs.5.79 lacs, the assessee had already deposited an amount of Rs.1.6 lacs, which has been treated to be as sufficient for the purpose of Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A waiver has been granted of the balance. 2. The ground which has been formulated by the Revenue in support of the appeal and which is pressed, is as follows: - "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CESTAT has erred in law in granting waiver of pre deposit of assessed demand in favour of the Respondent's during pendency of the appeal or for unlimited period thereby granting the stay ignoring provisos to Section 35-C (2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 including third proviso made through enactment of the Finance Act, 2013 wherein the Tribunal was bound to specify the time limit of stay subject to not exceeding 180 days in first time and 185 days in second time granting extension but not exceeding total period of 365 days." 3. There is a fundamental fallacy in the submission of the Revenue. Sub-section (2A) of Section 35-C of the Act requires the Tribunal to endeavour to dispose of the appeal within the stipulated period as set out therein. The first proviso provides that where an order of stay has been passed, the Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within a period of 180 days from the date of the order. Under the second proviso, if the appeal is not disposed of within the period specified in the first proviso, the stay order shall stand vacated. Hence, the provisions which are contained in the second proviso to Section 35-C (2A) of the Act operate as a matter of law. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that the Tribunal in passing the order of stay has acted in violation of the provisions of the second proviso to Section 35-C (2A) of the Act. 4. The appeal by the Revenue would hence not give rise to any substantial questions of law. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that the Tribunal in passing the order of stay has acted in violation of the provisions of the second proviso to Section 35-C (2A) of the Act. 4. The appeal by the Revenue would hence not give rise to any substantial questions of law. However, we direct the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal expeditiously having due regard to the mandate which is contained in Section 35-C (2A) of the Act. Subject to the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.