Judgment:
1. The present appeal was filed on 8-5-1996 along with an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit. In disposing of the application the Tribunal made the following directions : "Considering the submissions, the points involved call for interpretation of the proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, as also the Notification No. 101/93. In the context of the provisions contained in Notification No. 32/94, and both the Notifications in context to the proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excises & Salt Act. This can be done only at the final hearing stage. We are therefore directed the appellants to make a deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- and furnish a bank guarantee for another sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. They are given time of 3 months to comply with the directions given. They will be at liberty to make the cash deposit by instalments within the stipulated period. On deposit, there shall be stay against recovery and waiver of pre-deposit of the duty amount. They should report compliance by 2-9 1996".
The assessees complied partly. They filed the guarantee but deposited only Rs. 1 lakh in cash. In their modification application, the Tribunal observed as follows: "Shri Willingdon Christian the ld. Counsel submits that he will pay Rs. 1 lakh more today. Taking the circumstances into consideration and in the interest of justice, we feel that three more months can be granted to the applicant's for complying with the order dated 23-5-1996. We, therefore, direct that in modifying the earlier order the applicant may be directed pay the remaining a sum of amount of Rs. 3 lakhs and furnish bank guarantee for Rs. 5 lakhs by 28-4-1997, they should report compliance by 22-4-1997." In terms of the promise made by the Counsel another deposit of Rs. 1 lakh was made on 22-1-1997. However when the matter was posted for hearing today, it became clear that the assessees had not complied fully with the order inasmuch as the remaining sum of Rs. 3 lakhs had not been deposited. Shri Paresh Joshi, ld. Counsel fairly concedes and submits that he has filed yet another miscellaneous application. It is his submission that the unit is now sick and is under BIFR. He further submit that the lack of compliance should not be held against him.
2. We have considered this situation. We find that where the assessees should have complied with the order in modification, after 4 years also there is no compliance. In the face of utter disregard of the Tribunal's order by the assessee, we are not inclined to give any further facility such as hearing on the application for modifications.
The appeal merits dismissal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and is dismissed.