Interim protection against penalty recovery may be granted by a single Member to preserve relief pending Division Bench consideration.

Further recovery of penalty under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 may be stayed pending consideration of an extension-of-stay request by the Division Bench, where a pre-deposit has already been made under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The text notes that a single Member should not modify an earlier Division Bench stay order, but may grant interim protection under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules to avoid undue hardship and preserve the subject matter. On that basis, temporary protection against recovery was granted until the Division Bench decided the extension petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether further recovery of the penalty could be stayed pending consideration of the request for extension of stay by the Division Bench.

Analysis: The matter concerned liability to penalty under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the pre-deposit already made under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The order noted that a further recovery notice would cause undue hardship and that no Division Bench was sitting during the week. It also considered that, while a single Member should not modify the earlier stay order of the Division Bench, appropriate interim relief could still be granted under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules to meet the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The request for interim protection was accepted and recovery was stayed until the Division Bench considered and disposed of the petition for extension of stay.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained temporary protection against recovery, but only until the Division Bench dealt with the extension request.

Ratio Decidendi: A single Member may grant interim relief under the procedural rules to prevent hardship and preserve the subject matter, even where modification of a Division Bench stay order is not appropriate.

---