Stay orders pending appeal remain modifiable by the issuing authority; functus officio does not bar reconsideration of an interim deposit direction.

An appellate authority's stay direction requiring deposit of duty pending appeal is only an interim arrangement and remains open to modification by the same authority. The view that the authority became functus officio after passing the stay order was incorrect, because the order was not a final adjudication of the dispute. Refusal to entertain the modification application was therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be examined on merits. The request for reconsideration of the stay order was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appellate authority can reconsider or modify its own stay order passed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether refusal to entertain such a modification application was sustainable.

Analysis: The appellate authority's direction to deposit duty pending appeal was an interim arrangement for the purpose of hearing the appeal and not a final adjudication of the dispute. Such an order remained open to modification by the same authority that passed it. The view that the authority became functus officio and could not reconsider the stay direction was incorrect, and the matter required examination of the modification application on merits.

Conclusion: The refusal to reconsider the stay order was unsustainable, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration of the modification application.

---