Modification of interim stay orders should go before the same Members, with coercive recovery stayed pending decision.

An application seeking recall or modification of an interim stay order was treated as a modification request, and fairness and propriety required it to be placed before the same Members who passed the original order, even though Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act did not strictly apply to an interim order. The matter was directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench after obtaining orders from the President. To preserve the efficacy of the pending applications and prevent irreversible recovery steps, interim protection was granted under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, and the authorities were restrained from taking coercive recovery action until final orders were passed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application seeking recall or modification of an interim stay order should be placed before the same Members who passed the order; (ii) whether coercive recovery should be restrained pending final orders on the applications.

Issue (i): Whether an application seeking recall or modification of an interim stay order should be placed before the same Members who passed the order.

Analysis: The application was treated as one for modification of an interim order rather than a review on merits. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that, even where Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not strictly govern an interim order, fairness and propriety require the modification application to be considered by the same Members who made the original order.

Conclusion: The applications were directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench after obtaining necessary orders from the Hon'ble President.

Issue (ii): Whether coercive recovery should be restrained pending final orders on the applications.

Analysis: To preserve the efficacy of the pending applications and prevent irreversible recovery steps before they were heard, the Tribunal exercised its procedural power under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules to grant interim protection.

Conclusion: The Central Excise authorities were directed not to take coercive action for recovery of the amounts covered by the stay order until final orders were passed on the applications.

Final Conclusion: The applicants obtained procedural relief by securing placement of the matter before the proper Bench and by obtaining protection from coercive recovery pending disposal of the modification applications.

Ratio Decidendi: A modification application concerning an interim order should ordinarily be heard by the same Members who passed that order, and interim protection may be granted to preserve the subject matter pending such consideration.

---