ORDER M.R. Shah, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") dated 18.09.2014, by which, the petitioner is required to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 25 lacs which is collected from service recipients to the Government Treasury within a period of 8 weeks from today, to be deposited as pre deposit. 2. That feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order in Appeal No. SUR-EXCUS-001-APP-650-13-14 dated 31.3.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A), CE&ST, Surat 1, the petitioner has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. It is required to be noted that the adjudicating authority - Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat 1 passed Order in Original dated 27.08.2013 confirming the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 38,02,498/- and ordered to recover the same from the petitioner along with interest under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 respectively. That the adjudicating authority had also imposed various penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the adjudicating authority, petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and by order dated 31.3.2014 the First Appellate Authority has dismissed the said appeal against which the petitioner had preferred appeal before the learned Tribunal. That in the said appeal before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner submitted stay application/application for waiver of pre-deposit. That by impugned order, the learned Tribunal has directed the petitioner to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 25 lacs, which is collected from service recipients to the Government Treasury within a period of 8 weeks and report compliance on 18.11.2014 to the Bench. That subject to such compliance being reported, the learned Tribunal has allowed the application for the pre-deposit of balance amount involved and recovery thereof has been stayed till final disposal of the appeal. 2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. 2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Shri Danak, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to satisfy the Court how the impugned order of pre-deposit can be said to be erroneous and/or illegal. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the question is with respect to amount of service tax, which the petitioner had collected but not deposited with the Government. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in directing the petitioner to deposit balance amount of Rs. 25 lacs which the petitioner had collected from the service recipients. 3.1. At this stage, it is also required to be noted that Shri Danak, learned advocate for the petitioner has not made any submission with respect to any financial hardship to the assessee if the petitioner is directed to make the payment of pre-deposit. Even otherwise and as observed herein above, in fact the petitioner had collected the service tax from the service recipients, however after collecting the same, the petitioner had not deposited the same with the Government Treasury. 3.2. The only submission made by learned advocate for the petitioner is that earlier petitioner had deposited some amount towards service tax, however the petitioner is not having receipts for the same. It is required to be noted that learned Tribunal has considered the aforesaid and has directed the petitioner to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 25 lacs. Even otherwise, it is for the petitioner to produce the evidence with respect to any payment towards the service tax. It was for him to keep records/receipts of payment of service tax paid, if any. In any case, when the petitioner is directed to deposit the balance amount of service tax to the extent of 25 lacs, which the petitioner had collected from the service recipients but did not deposit with the government treasury, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is in any way erroneous, which calls for the interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article226 of the Constitution of India. 3.3. 3.3. It is required to be noted that even the learned advocate for the petitioner is not in a position to make any statement what happened after 18.11.2014. It is to be noted that the last date for depositing the amount of pre-deposit was 18.11.2014 and the by impugned the petitioner was required to submit the compliance report. Therefore, as such the appeal must have been dismissed for non compliance of the order of the pre-deposit. 4. In any case, the impugned order cannot be said to be erroneous, which calls for the interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In view of the above, there is no substance in the present petition and same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.