Per G.P. Agarwal: This is an application by the appellants for extention of time to comply with the Stay Order No.22 & 23/1994-A dated 27th December, 1993 by another three or four months.

2. Arguing on the application, Ms. Archana Wadhwa, learned counsel, submitted that after the rejection of their application for modification of the said stay order vide Misc. Order No.219/94-A dated 1.7.194, the appellants made an attempt to raise the funds to pre-deposit the amount, as ordered earlier, and the negotiations are on. She drew our attention to certain correspondence entered into between the appellants and other concerns. She also highlighted that the factory is closed for the last seven or eight years. Opposing the prayer, Shri B.K. Singh, learned SDR, submitted that while passing the stay order all these facts, such as, their factory is closed, their financial position is not sound, etc. were duly considered and it is only after considering the said submission that a very small amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was ordered to be deposited within four months from the date of the order out of the total demand of duty of Rs., 1,05,56,040.70 in the first appeal and a demand of Rs. 15,56,645 in the second matter, besides the amount of penalty of Rs.4 lakhs. In a nutshell, his submission was that since the appellants have not complied with the stay order within the extended period, the appeals be dismissed in terms of Section 35-F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

3. We have considered the submissions. From the Stay Order No.22 & 23/1994-A dated 27th December, 1994, we find that all these facts, that is to say, the factory is closed, their financial position is not sound were inter alia considered, with due sympathy and after considering all these facts, the Tribunal directed them to deposit the said amount of Rs. 10 lakhs and also furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.30 lakhs wih in four months from the date of the order. In spite of this, the appellants did not comply with the Stay Order nor even cared to furnish the bank guarantee and allowed the time given to deposit the amount to run out and, thereafter, moved a Misc. Application for modification of the said Stay Order virtually reiterating the earlier ground which was rejected by Misc. Order No.219/ 94-A dated 1.7.1994. However, before dismissing the appeals in terms of Section 35-F, the Tribunal extended the time to comply with the Order on or before 30th September, 1994. The appellants did not comply with the said Order. They have not deposited even any amount nor furnished the bank guarantee to show their bona fide and it is Only on 28th September, 1994, that is to say, just before two days of the expiry of the time given to them earlier, that is to say, 30th September, 1994 they dared to move another application for extention of time virtually on the same grounds. On being asked by the Bench, as to whether after the passing of the stay order or the Misc. Order the appellants approached any High Court challenging the said orders, the learned counsel submitted that according to her information the appellants did not approach any High Court. On being further asked, as to whether the appellants approached the BIFR if the factory of the appellants is lying closed/ sick for the last so many years, as stated before us, the learned counsel pleaded her ignorance. These entire events indicate the conduct of the appellants that they are not willing to comply with the Stay Order and want to drag on the matter as much as possible. Besides the correspondence, to which our attention was drawn while arguing the present Misc. Application indicates that the appellant wants the involvement of some other well reputed concern in their concern and this correspondence is at the preliminary stage. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to further extend the time, as prayed for. However, before dismissing both these appeal we give the appellants four weeks' time from today to comply with