P.G. Chacko, Judicial Member - We had directed the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- within six weeks and report compliance to the Assistant Registrar on 27.8.2012 vide Stay Order No. 1074/2012 dated 26.6.2012. The Assistant Registrar reported that there was no compliance. The appellant, in a miscellaneous application No. 506/2012, requested for extension of time. Though there was nobody to move that application despite notice, we took it up on 4.9.2012 and granted extension of time as prayed for. Accordingly, the appellant was required to report compliance on 7.11.2012 vide Misc. Order No.665/2012 dated 4.9.2012. As there was no sitting on the appointed date, the matter has eventually arisen before us today. There is no representation for the appellant today despite notice, nor any evidence of pre-deposit available on record.

2. Today, a miscellaneous application No. 597/2012 seeking modification of the stay order is coming up for consideration. However, there is nobody to move this application. Nevertheless, we have perused the averments contained therein. We have also heard the learned Superintendent (AR) for the respondent. This application reiterates the plea of financial hardships and, more significant, refers to an order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, which is order dated 11.9.2012 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 28295 of 2012 filed against Stay Order No. 1074/2012 dated 26-6-2012 passed by this Bench. On a perusal of the Hon'ble High Court's order, we find that Hon'ble High Court did not interfere with our direction for pre-deposit of Rs. 14 lakhs. The Hon'ble High Court only allowed credit of any earlier payments to be taken by the party towards pre-deposit ordered by this Bench. Further, the Hon'ble High Court granted four weeks time (from 11-9-2012) to deposit any balance amount and submit proof thereof to the Registry of this Tribunal. As against the equitable relief so granted by the Hon'ble High Court, the party has, in the miscellaneous application under consideration, chosen to submit as follows :-

"7. It is to submit that the total demand for the period April 2004 to March 2005 is only Rs. 21,18,558/- which is evident from the Show-Cause Notice. Being the case, the 50% of the pre-deposit amounts to only Rs. 10,59,279/- out of which Rs. 10,33,414/- is already paid during the impugned period. Balance amount of Rs. 25,865/- is paid herewith vide Challan No. 00025 thus totalling 50% of the pre-deposit actually required to be paid. The disputed period is only for the year 2004-05 and not from 1/4/2005 to 16/6/2005 in which period the benefit of said notification is available to the Appellant."

The above averments of the appellant amount to a plea for modification of our original stay order which has already merged with Hon'ble High Court's order dated 11.9.2012. Obviously, we are incompetent to modify the stay order. The party has not complied with the time-bound direction of the Hon'ble High Court either. There is no clear statement of any payments made by the appellant for the period April 2004 to June 2005, nor there is any claim of further payments within the prescribed time towards pre-deposit of Rs. 14 lakhs ordered by this Bench.

3. In the above scenario, the miscellaneous application is rejected and, consequently, the appeal also gets dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35 of the Central Excise Act as applicable to the Service Tax appeal.