Judgment: 1. The matter having been passed over once on the ground that the advocate for the applicant is busy in the High Court. Advocate for the applicant is still not present. We have therefore read the applicants and heard the departmental representative.
2. The contention that the applicant has become a sick unit is not acceptable. A mere application filed to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction is not sufficient evidence that the applicant is a sick unit. The next contention that the provisions of Section 129E did not confer power to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance of the order is also not acceptable. It is now settled that if the stay order is not complied with the appeal has to be dismissed. The Supreme Court observed in Navin Chandra Chhotelal v. Central Board of Excise & Customs -1981 (8) E.L.T. 679 that an appeal cannot be kept indefinitely merely because the stay order has not been complied with.