ORDER : Heard on the question of admission. By this appeal under Section 35G(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, appellant - M/s. Prakash Industries Ltd. is challenging the order dated 10-2-2015 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi in Excise Appeal No. E/58737/2013, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed for non-compliance of stay order dated 3-6-2014. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal vide Stay Order No. SO/5194/2014-EX(DB), dated 3-6-2014 had directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 12.00 crores within a period of four weeks and compliance was to be reported on 4-8-2014. On deposit of this amount within the stipulated period, the requirement of pre-deposit of balance amount of the duty demand, interest and penalty for compliance with the provisions of Section 35F would stand waived of and recovery thereof be stayed. 3. Against the stay order dated 3-6-2014 of the learned Tribunal, the appellant filed an appeal before the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur and the Division Bench vide order dated 24-6-2014 refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. The order dated 24-6-2014 is relevant, which reads as under :- 1. This is a tax appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (the Tribunal) dated 3-6-2014 partly dismissing the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of duty, penalty and interest of M/s. Prakash Industries Limited (the assessee). THE FACTS 2. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee by the Adjudicating Officer (the AO) on 30-4-2007 to show cause why central excise duty along with interest and penalty be not imposed for the clandestine removal and short stock goods during the period 2002-2005. 3. The assessee filed its reply on 6-10-2008 and after considering the same, the AO confirmed the notice on 29-3-2013 and imposed Rs. 16,92,11,104/- as central excise duty for clandestine removal and Rs. 94,59,415/- for short of stock detected; the same amount as penalty along with interest was also imposed. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of duty and penalty. This application was partly allowed on deposit of Rs. 12,00,00,000/- within a period of four weeks. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of duty and penalty. This application was partly allowed on deposit of Rs. 12,00,00,000/- within a period of four weeks. Hence, the present appeal. THE DECISION 5. We have heard counsel for the parties. 6. The counsel for the appellants submits that : The Tribunal had reserved the order on 29-1-2014 and it was delivered on 3-6-2014. There was a delay and all points are not dealt with in the order; The Tribunal, while considering the prima facie case, has not considered the consumption of electricity as well as sale of raw materials and the question of transportation of alleged clandestine removal of goods. 7. The question of pre-deposit application has to be dealt with under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act). Under this section, the undue hardship is to be considered. 8. The question of undue hardship has been considered by the Tribunal in paragraph 42 of the order and has held that in case of deposit of Rs. 12,00,00,000/-, it would not cause any undue hardship to the assessee. 9. The prima facie case has also been considered. 10. The Tribunal was not passing order on the appeal on merits, it was passing order on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of duty and penalty. The question of prima facie case is to be dealt with broadly. 11. The Tribunal has broadly considered the prima facie case and after considering it, has ordered to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,00,00,000/-. 12. We see no justification to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed. 4. Against the order of Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court, the appellant filed a SLP before the Apex Court and the Apex Court vide order dated 30-6-2014 dismissed the SLP and granted four weeks time to comply with the directions of the Tribunal. The order dated 30-6-2014 is relevant, which reads as under :- Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Dismissed. The order dated 30-6-2014 is relevant, which reads as under :- Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Dismissed. However, we grant another four weeks' time from today to the petitioner to comply with the orders and directions issued by the Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi passed in Excise Stay Application No. E/Stay/59375/2013 in Excise Appeal No. E/58737/2013. 5. From perusal of order of the Apex Court, it is clear that the Apex Court, while dismissing the SLP has granted only another four weeks' time to comply with the order of the Tribunal. Once the order of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Chhattisgarh High Court and since SLP against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by the Apex Court, no [interference] can be made out by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the order dated 22-3-2011 of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Garg v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Delhi [2011 (269) E.L.T. 56 (Del.)], whereby Delhi High Court allowed instalment facility. He has also placed reliance on the following decisions :- 1. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Mafatlal U. Mehta reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 434 (Tri.-Mumbai). 2. Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh v. Standard Tapulin Industries reported in 2002 (143) E.L.T. 430 (Tri.-LB). 3. Deepak Jhunjhunwala v. Union of India reported in 2013 (290) E.L.T. 365 (Bom.) 4. Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur reported in 2010 (18) S.T.R. 394 (Tri.-Del.) 5. Scan Computer Consultancy v. Union of India reported in 2006 (204) E.L.T. 43 (Guj.) = 2008 (12) S.T.R. 108 (Guj.) 6. Classic Builders (Madras) (P.) Ltd. v. Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal decided on 29-1-2016 in CMA Nos. 97, 158, 159 of 2016 and CMP Nos. 972, 1345, 1347 of 2016 [2016 (42) S.T.R. 668 (Mad.)]. 7. In the present case, the facts are totally different. Learned Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 12.00 crores within a period of four weeks had been upheld by the Chhattisgarh High Court and the SLP against the aforesaid order had been dismissed with a direction to deposit the amount, within a period of four weeks from the date of order. 8. Learned Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 12.00 crores within a period of four weeks had been upheld by the Chhattisgarh High Court and the SLP against the aforesaid order had been dismissed with a direction to deposit the amount, within a period of four weeks from the date of order. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that there is no jurisdiction to modify its order dated 24-6-2014. The appeal filed by the appellant has been rightly dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 9. For the above-mentioned reasons and in view of the order passed by the Apex Court, no case to interfere with the order of learned Tribunal nor any substantial question of law is arising in this appeal. The central excise appeal filed by the appellant has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed.