ORDER M.C. Agarwal, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By an order dated 17-5-1994, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has dismissed the petitioner's application for stay of the recovery of demand during the pendency of appeal. The reason for the dismissal of the application was that the appellant was absent, its application for adjournment on the ground of counsel being unable to attend, was rejected. The stay application was dismissed for want of prosecution. In the present writ petition, the said order is sought to be quashed and it is prayed that the recovery of the demand be stayed. It appears that the applicant moved a joint application praying that the condition of pre-deposit of the dues under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act be waived and further that the department be restrained from effecting recovery of the same till the decision of the appeal. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rejected only the application so far as it related to the stay of the demand and the impugned order dated 17-5-1994 does not make any mentioning whatsoever to the petitioner's prayer for waiver of pre-deposit. That means that part of the application is yet to be disposed of.
2. So far as the stay of the demand is concerned, the application has been dismissed for want of prosecution after rejecting an adjournment application. It is open to the petitioner to move a fresh application for stay of the demand. In my view, therefore, there is no cause for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
3. A certifed copy of this order may be supplied to the learned counsel on payment of usual charges today.