https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33962 Stay could not be granted against an order merely refusing modification of an earlier stay direction because such an order was not executable. A quasi-judicial authority has no inherent power to review or modify its own pre-deposit order; a request framed as modification was treated as an impermissible review in the absence of express statutory authority. Under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, waiver or reduction of pre-deposit requires a showing of undue hardship, which was not established on the facts, and the ordered deposit was not found excessive. The stay applications were therefore rejected and compliance with the pre-deposit direction was required. en-us Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Apr 2013 18:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33962 Stay could not be granted against an order merely refusing modification of an earlier stay direction because such an order was not executable. A quasi-judicial authority has no inherent power to review or modify its own pre-deposit order; a request framed as modification was treated as an impermissible review in the absence of express statutory authority. Under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, waiver or reduction of pre-deposit requires a showing of undue hardship, which was not established on the facts, and the ordered deposit was not found excessive. The stay applications were therefore rejected and compliance with the pre-deposit direction was required. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33962