ORDER Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. Petitioners have challenged an order dated 6.2.2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT for short) under which while remanding the proceedings back to the adjudicating authority, Tribunal imposed a condition of depositing sum of Rs. 50 lacs on the petitioners. The petitioners were served with show cause notice dated 14.12.2004 why excise duty with interest and penalty not be recovered. It is not in dispute that after service of show cause notice, adjudicating authority kept the proceedings in abeyance and revived the hearing only in the year 2012. In the meantime, the petitioners' factory had shutdown. Notices of hearing of the show cause notice, therefore, returned unserved. The adjudicating authority, therefore, proceeded ex parte and passed the final order confirming the duty demand with penalty and interest. This order the petitioners challenged before the Tribunal and requested for remand of the proceedings since the order in original was passed ex parte. On the date of hearing on 6.2.2014, in fact, the petitioners requested for adjournment. However, the Tribunal on the ground that twice the proceedings were earlier adjourned, refused to grant any further time and while remanding the proceedings to the adjudicating authority imposed the said condition of depositing sum of Rs. 50 lacs on the petitioners. Tribunal made following observations:-- "4. On perusal of the record, it transpires that the demands have been confirmed on M/s. Waghbakriwala Rayons on the ground that they had removed the processed and dyed fabrics and waste fabrics illicitly and clandestinely. On perusal of the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant, the entire grounds of appeals revolves on the violation of principles of natural justice stating that they had not received the hearing notices and they could not file reply to the show cause notice. It is also claimed in the grounds of appeal that impugned order is issued ex parte, without giving a single hearing to the appellant and they were not given time for presenting their case. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the adjudicating authority has recorded that he had granted personal hearing to the appellant and hearing notices were returned to the office of the adjudicating authority by the postal authority with remarks 'Left/Returned to sender'. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the adjudicating authority has recorded that he had granted personal hearing to the appellant and hearing notices were returned to the office of the adjudicating authority by the postal authority with remarks 'Left/Returned to sender'. We would have normally allowed these applications and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, but in the case in hand, we do not find reason to do so inasmuch as, the appellant herein neither filed any reply to the show cause notice which was issued to diem on 14.12.2004 nor represented before the adjudicating authority seeking time for filing reply to show cause notice. There is nothing on record to indicate that they had not received show cause notice. In view of this, we hold that appellants herein were non-cooperative with the adjudicating authority. At the same time, there being a claim of violation of principles of natural justice, in the interest, in our view, the appellants should be granted an opportunity for filing reply to the show cause notice and being heard by the adjudicating authority. 5. In view of the above, there being non-cooperation from the appellant even before us, which can be noticed from the fact that notes were filed for adjournments; appellant should be put to some conditions for remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority. Appellants need to cooperate with the adjudicating authority and to do so, we direct M/s. Waghbakriwala Rayons, the main appellant herein to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs Only) within a period of eight weeks from today and report compliance to the adjudicating authority on 9.42014. All the appellants herein are also directed to file reply to the show cause notice within four weeks from today, stating their defence before adjudicating authority and also the address for communication. Subject to such compliance of depositing the amount being reported, adjudicating authority shall take up the matters for disposal after following the principles of natural justice. Stay petitions and appeals allowed by way of remand". 2. Subject to such compliance of depositing the amount being reported, adjudicating authority shall take up the matters for disposal after following the principles of natural justice. Stay petitions and appeals allowed by way of remand". 2. Counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Avaya Global Connect Ltd. v. Union of India [2013] 36 taxmann.com 9 : 40 STT 495 to contend that though Tribunal has wide powers under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, while remanding the proceedings on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice, condition of pre-deposit cannot be imposed. For the same purpose, reliance was also placed on the decision dated 20th August, 2015 made in Special Civil Application No. 15279 of 2014 in case of Waghbakriwala Rayons v. CCE. 3. Learned counsel, Shri R.J. Oza, for the Department on the other hand pointed out that even after service of the show cause notice, petitioners had not filed any reply. Notices were dispatched to the factory address given by the petitioners. Since 2004, petitioners are facing proceedings for recovery of unpaid excise duties for a sum of Rs. 4 crores (rounded off) with matching penalty and interest. Tribunal under Section 3 5C of the Central Excise Act has ample powers to impose suitable conditions. 4. We notice that in Avaya Global Connect Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has recognized the width of the power of the Tribunal while disposing of an appeal in terms of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act. The Division Bench made following observations:-- "On fair reading of section 35C of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is conferred with the power and has a wide discretion to pass such orders as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying, or annulling the decision or order appealed against or refer the case back to the authority which passed such decision or order with such directions as the Appellate Tribunal may think fit, for fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary. The terminology directions in the aforesaid provision cannot be restricted to the directions of the lower authorities to do de novo adjudication proceedings in a particular way and/or giving certain guidance to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order on merits, as sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners. To read into something to the above while considering the terminology direction would be restricting powers of the Appellate Tribunal to issue such directions as it deems fit and to add something which is not there in the statute. In a given case if it is found that the matter is required to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority because of the lapse on the part of the assessee and if it is found by the Appellate Tribunal that before the original adjudicating authority the assessee has not cooperated like in the present case, however, the assessee is to be given additional opportunity, the Tribunal may issue direction directing the appellant assessee to deposit some amount while remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority and before his case is considered on merits by the original adjudicating authority on remand. The aforesaid direction as such cannot be said to be a order of pre-deposit as per section 35F of the Act. Such a direction of deposit of some amount while remanding the matter to the original authority can be said to be imposing of condition of deposit of some amount before any de novo adjudication by the original authority on remand which was necessitated due to the reasons attributed to the assessee. In a given case, if it is found by the Tribunal that the order of remand is required to be passed because of the reasons which are not attributed to the assessee and/or because of any error and/or fault on the part of adjudicating authority, the Tribunal may not issue such direction of deposit. However, to say that the Appellate Tribunal lacks total jurisdiction of issuing any such direction of deposit of some amount while remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication under Section 35C of the Act, cannot be accepted". 5. However, to say that the Appellate Tribunal lacks total jurisdiction of issuing any such direction of deposit of some amount while remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication under Section 35C of the Act, cannot be accepted". 5. Sub-section (1) of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act provides that the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the opportunity of hearing to the parties, pass such orders as it thinks fit either confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or may refer back to the authority which passed such order as to the legality or propriety of such decision with such directions that Tribunal thinks fit, for fresh adjudication or decision after taking additional evidence if necessary. Thus undoubtedly the Tribunal has wide powers while disposing of appeal before it. In the process of directing the authority to re-decide the case, Tribunal may also give directions as found fit. It is, therefore, clear that any order of remand that the Tribunal may pass does not need to be unconditional. It is well within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to impose suitable conditions as may be found necessary in the facts of the case. Depositing certain amount as a pre-condition to such remand therefore is well within the power of the Tribunal, though the same may not be termed as a pre-deposit of the duty since there can be pre-deposit only of an amount of duty interest or penalty which has been confirmed. 6. When the Tribunal, therefore, in the present case set aside the order-in-original, there was no order confirming duty penalty or interest and in that sense, the condition of pre-deposit of any amount could not have been imposed. This is, however, not the same thing to suggest that even if the facts otherwise so merited, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to impose suitable condition of depositing appropriate amount. 7. Reverting to the facts of the case, it appears that the petitioners were not duly served with the notices of hearing of the show cause notice proceedings and hearing was revived after long gap of nearly 9 years. In the meantime, factory of the petitioners was closed down. Primarily on such grounds, we are inclined to set aside the condition imposed by the Tribunal of depositing a sizable sum of Rs. In the meantime, factory of the petitioners was closed down. Primarily on such grounds, we are inclined to set aside the condition imposed by the Tribunal of depositing a sizable sum of Rs. 50 Lacs which is made a precondition for fresh disposal of the show cause notice by the adjudicating authority. However, it appears that the petitioners had corresponded with the authorities from the factory address as well as residential address. Nothing prevented the petitioners from pointing out to the authority that now the factory is closed and further communication be made only at the residential address/In that view of the matter, petitioners have also contributed to, though in a small measure, the ex parte order being passed. The Tribunal also noted that the petitioners had after filing of an appeal not pursued the same expeditiously. 8. In order not to delay the proceedings further while setting aside the Tribunal's condition of pre-deposit of Rs. 50 Lacs, we direct that the petitioners shall deposit cost of Rs. 25,000/- with the Department subject to which the adjudicating authority shall grant hearing and dispose of the proceedings afresh. The petitioners shall obtain the copies of demanded documents at their cost latest by 10th February, 2016 and shall file the reply not later than 1st March, 2016. Petition disposed of accordingly.