JUDGMENT ANTONY DOMINIC, J. This appeal is filed against Annexure-H order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore on an application of the appellant for waiver of pre-deposit of the customs duty demanded, against which the statutory appeal is filed before the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal held that the appellant has failed to establish any merit in the appeal and also the case of financial hardship that was pleaded. On that basis the appellant was directed to deposit the duty demanded within six weeks. It is this order which is under challenge before us. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The appellant is a 100% export oriented unit. On the basis that they did not achieve the export obligation, proceedings were initiated and an order was passed by the Director - STPI. Though a writ petition filed against the order of the Director is pending before this Court, the appellant has not succeeded in obtaining any interim order in that case. Based on the order passed by the Director - STPI, customs authorities initiated proceedings and finally confirmed demand of Rs.33,73,237/- towards customs duty and central excise duty of Rs.9,741/- was also demanded. It was aggrieved by this order, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal. 4. In the application filed by the appellant for waiver of pre-deposit, on an earlier occasion, the Tribunal had passed an order requiring the appellant to deposit the duty demanded and report compliance on 29.01.2015. The amount was not deposited and as there was no representation on behalf of the appellant on 29.01.2015, the case was dismissed. However, the order passed by the Tribunal requiring deposit of the duty demanded was set aside by this Court and taking note of the direction in the judgment to re-consider the order passed on the application for waiver of pre-deposit, the Tribunal restored the appeal to file and heard the application afresh. It is accordingly that Annexure-H order was passed which is impugned in this appeal. 5. It is the settled position of law that as far as an application for waiver of pre-deposit is concerned, the relevant considerations which should weigh with the Tribunal are whether the appellant has made out a prima facie case and whether any financial hardship has been established. 5. It is the settled position of law that as far as an application for waiver of pre-deposit is concerned, the relevant considerations which should weigh with the Tribunal are whether the appellant has made out a prima facie case and whether any financial hardship has been established. In so far as the question of prima facie case is concerned, reading of paragraph 7 of the order shows that the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the Director - STPI has passed on order against the appellant and that though a writ petition has been filed against the said order, no interlocutory orders was passed by this Court. On this basis, the Tribunal has rightly held that the order passed by the Director - STPI binds the authorities under the Customs Act and that in view of the said order of the Director, the appellant could not make out a prima facie case in their favour. In so far as the issue of financial hardship is concerned, in paragraph 5 of the order the Tribunal has held thus; "As regards financial position, to a specific query from the Bench, learned counsel fairly agreed that he has no documentary evidence to show that appellant is having financial difficulties. He submits that the Unit has huge accumulated losses but once again no documentary evidence could be produced." 6. This, therefore, means that appellant has failed to establish not only a prima facie case but also financial hardship before the Tribunal. It was in such circumstances that the Tribunal has ordered deposit of the duty demanded. However, the counsel for the appellant wanted us to accept certain documents in order to indicate that the appellant company is in financial difficulties. According to us, the appellant having failed to produce such records before the Tribunal on both the occasions when the application was heard and in the absence of any explanation for such failure, this Court will not be justified in entertaining the request made before us. We therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. Appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed.