https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170540 Modification of a pre-deposit stay order was declined because later orders dropping duty demands in other proceedings did not show identical material facts, and those orders were not final. The Tribunal held that differing interim treatment could not be justified merely by subsequent outcomes in other cases, especially where unexplained electricity-consumption variations remained a key factor in the present matter. It also reaffirmed that, after passing a stay order, it is functus officio in relation to review of that order except for limited statutory rectification, and a modification application cannot be used as a substitute for review absent a mistake apparent from the record or another legally recognised ground. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 May 2015 16:10:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170540 Modification of a pre-deposit stay order was declined because later orders dropping duty demands in other proceedings did not show identical material facts, and those orders were not final. The Tribunal held that differing interim treatment could not be justified merely by subsequent outcomes in other cases, especially where unexplained electricity-consumption variations remained a key factor in the present matter. It also reaffirmed that, after passing a stay order, it is functus officio in relation to review of that order except for limited statutory rectification, and a modification application cannot be used as a substitute for review absent a mistake apparent from the record or another legally recognised ground. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170540