https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41570 The Appellate Tribunal was required to reconsider the petitioner's modification request because the earlier stay order had not adequately addressed the bank's insistence on a cash margin for issuing a bank guarantee. The practical inability to furnish cash deposit was treated as a material factor requiring fresh examination. Pending that reconsideration, coercive recovery on the basis of the demand notice was not warranted, and recovery proceedings were to remain in abeyance until the Tribunal completed its review. en-us Thu, 19 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:05:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41570 The Appellate Tribunal was required to reconsider the petitioner's modification request because the earlier stay order had not adequately addressed the bank's insistence on a cash margin for issuing a bank guarantee. The practical inability to furnish cash deposit was treated as a material factor requiring fresh examination. Pending that reconsideration, coercive recovery on the basis of the demand notice was not warranted, and recovery proceedings were to remain in abeyance until the Tribunal completed its review. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41570