Pre-deposit compliance cannot be reopened through stay modification when later attachment proceedings arise.

An application to modify an interim stay order could not be used to waive the pre-deposit requirement after the Tribunal had already rejected the stay plea on financial hardship and granted time for compliance. The Tribunal held that non-payment within the time allowed attracted dismissal of the appeals under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Subsequent detention or attachment proceedings under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 4 of the Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulter for the Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1995 did not justify reopening the stay order. The modification request was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the interim stay order could be modified by waiving the requirement of pre-deposit on the ground of subsequent detention or attachment proceedings and alleged financial hardship.

Analysis: The application was for modification of the earlier stay order, not for rectification of any error. The Tribunal noted that the stay applications had already been rejected after considering financial hardship and that time had been granted for making the pre-deposit, with a clear direction that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the appeals. As no payment was made within the time granted, the appeals stood dismissed by operation of the stay order for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The subsequent steps taken for execution under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 4 of the Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulter for the Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1995 did not furnish a basis to revisit the stay order.

Conclusion: The request for modification of the stay order was not maintainable on the facts and was rightly rejected.

---