Pre-deposit waiver principles limit recall of stay orders where no financial hardship is shown, though compliance time may be extended.

A miscellaneous application before CESTAT was not maintainable as rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act because rectification lies only after a final order, but it was treated as a request to modify the stay order. On merits, the Tribunal followed the principle that a prima facie case alone does not establish undue hardship, and noted that no financial hardship was pleaded. Full waiver of the pre-deposit condition was therefore refused, while extension of time to comply with the stay order was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether a miscellaneous application filed before the Tribunal could be entertained as a request for modification of a stay order directing pre-deposit, and whether waiver or recall of the pre-deposit condition was warranted.

Analysis: The application was held not maintainable as one for rectification of mistake under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because such rectification lies only after a final order. It was, however, treated as an application for modification of the stay order. On merits, the Tribunal noted the conflicting High Court views on recall or modification of interim pre-deposit orders, but followed the binding direction that a prima facie case by itself does not establish undue hardship. The Tribunal also noted that no financial hardship had been pleaded and that the appellant had not established a sufficient case for complete waiver of pre-deposit.

Conclusion: The request to modify or recall the stay order and seek full waiver of pre-deposit was rejected, while the application for extension of time to comply with the stay condition was allowed.

---