ORDER : Sangeet Lodha, J. This appeal is directed against order dated 14-10-2013 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ('the Appellate Tribunal') whereby an appeal preferred by the appellant against the order dated 14-12-2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) [CCE (A)], Jaipur-II, has been dismissed. 2. The relevant facts are that the appellant-assessee removed the goods valuing at Rs. 84,40,721/- involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 12,94,584/-, without reversing the amount of Cenvat credit. The Additional Commissioner found that there is blatant contravention of Rule 3(5) read with Section 3(4)(c) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 ('the Rules of 2004') and accordingly, vide order dated 30-12-2010, while determining the liability towards excise duty of Rs. 12,94,584/-, imposed penalty of Rs. 12,94,584/- on the assessee in terms of provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The order was upheld by the CCE (A), vide order dated 12/14-12-2012. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, accompanied by an application seeking stay on the demand. The stay petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal for non-prosecution and the appellant was directed to discharge the assessed liability pursuant to the adjudication order dated 30-12-2010, confirmed by the appellate order dated 12/14-12-2012, within four weeks. 4. The appellant did not deposit the assessed amount in compliance of the order dated 9-9-2013 passed by the Appellate Tribunal and therefore, the appeal preferred was dismissed for default in compliance of the order dated 9-9-2013, ignoring that the application preferred by the appellant for recalling/modification of order dated 9-9-2013 was pending consideration. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that following substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in the present appeal : Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee for alleged non-compliance of order dated 9-9-2013, without considering the application preferred by the assessee for recalling/modification of the said order, rejecting the stay petition preferred for non-prosecution? 6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is finally heard at this stage. 7. 6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is finally heard at this stage. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has seriously erred in rejecting the appeal preferred by the appellant for alleged default in compliance of the order dated 9-9-2013, when admittedly the application preferred by the appellant for recalling the said order was still pending consideration before the Appellate Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents while not disputing the factum of pendency of the application of recalling/modification order dated 9-9-2013 preferred by the appellant, submitted that the appellant having failed to comply with the condition of pre-deposit, as directed by the Appellate Tribunal, the order impugned, rejecting the appeal for default in compliance cannot be faulted with. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. Indisputably, pending disposal of the appeal, the application preferred by the appellant, seeking stay on recovery of the demand was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal for non-prosecution and the appellant was directed to pre-deposit the assessed liability pursuant to adjudication order dated 30-12-2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II, affirmed by the CCE (A), Jaipur-II. But then, the fact remains that the appellant had preferred an application for recall/modification of order passed by the Appellate Tribunal as aforesaid and restoration of the stay petition explaining the reasons in detail for non-appearance on 9-9-2013. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant having preferred the application as aforesaid, the Appellate Tribunal was reasonably expected to consider the said application first and could not have dismissed the appeal straightaway for non-compliance of the order directing pre-deposit of the assessed liability. A bare perusal of the order impugned reveals that the factum of pendency of the application preferred by the appellant for recalling/modification of the order dated 9-9-2013 was brought to the notice of the Appellate Tribunal yet, ignoring the same, the Appellate Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the appeal. In our considered opinion, the order impugned passed by the Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of the order directing pre-deposit of the assessed liability without deciding the application preferred by the appellant as aforesaid, is not justified and deserves to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. In our considered opinion, the order impugned passed by the Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of the order directing pre-deposit of the assessed liability without deciding the application preferred by the appellant as aforesaid, is not justified and deserves to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order impugned dated 14-10-2013 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Tribunal for consideration afresh in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.