Variation of stay order requires changed circumstances; financial position did not justify altering the deposit condition.

An application seeking variation of an interim stay order is distinct from rectification of mistake and may be heard by the Bench seized of the matter; a challenge to the President's administrative direction must be pursued separately. The Tribunal also held that variation of a deposit condition requires a sufficient change in circumstances. As the later balance sheet showed current assets substantially exceeding current liabilities, no adequate basis was shown to alter the earlier stay order requiring part-deposit of the duty demand. The stay condition was therefore maintained, with the appeal remaining subject to compliance and further orders on possible dismissal for non-compliance.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Bench was competent to hear an application seeking variation, reconsideration or review of an earlier stay order passed by a different Bench; and (ii) whether the earlier stay order directing deposit of part of the duty demand required variation on the basis of the applicant's financial position.

Issue (i): whether the Bench was competent to hear an application seeking variation, reconsideration or review of an earlier stay order passed by a different Bench.

Analysis: The application was treated as one for variation or alteration of the earlier stay order and not as an application for rectification of mistake under Rule 31A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. An application for variation of an interim stay order could be heard by the Bench seized of the matter. The order of the President directing the matter to be heard by the Bench as constituted on the date of hearing was not open to challenge before the same Bench, and any grievance against that order had to be pursued separately.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection to the competence of the Bench was overruled.

Issue (ii): whether the earlier stay order directing deposit of part of the duty demand required variation on the basis of the applicant's financial position.

Analysis: The earlier stay order had been passed after considering the material then available, including the provisional balance sheet. On the later balance sheet, the current assets substantially exceeded the current liabilities. In those circumstances, no sufficient justification was shown to vary or alter the earlier direction requiring deposit of a part of the duty demand.

Conclusion: The request to vary the stay order was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The stay order directing deposit was maintained, while the appeal remained subject to compliance and further orders on the question of dismissal for non-compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: An application seeking variation of an interim stay order is distinct from rectification of mistake and may be heard by the Bench seized of the matter; variation will not be granted unless the applicant shows a sufficient change in circumstances justifying interference with the earlier order.

---