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 19 February 2014 on an application for waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal has recorded that the total demand of duty is Rs.2,01,806/- which was on account of the denial of CENVAT credit of duty. The period involved was from February to December 2009, whereas the notice to show cause was issued on 3 February 2011. The Tribunal has while granting a dispensation of pre-deposit observed that the notice itself stated that the records of the appellant were scrutinized and it was found that they were taking CENVAT credit. This indicated that there was no suppression and hence, the extended period of limitation would prima facie not be applicable. 2. The grounds which have been formulated by the Revenue in support of the appeal and which are pressed, are as follows: - "1. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in granting waiver of pre-deposit of assessed demand in favour of the respondents, during pendency of the appeal, thereby extending the period of stay beyond 365 days, ignoring the amendment dated 10.05.2013 to Section 35-C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Whether Hon'ble CESTAT is empowered to extend the period of stay, beyond 365 days, contrary to recent amendment in Section 35-C of the Central Excise Act, 1944." 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. 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.