https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93696 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. en-us Mon, 15 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:29:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93696 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 15 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93696