ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. Northern Bench (DB) had passed Stay Order No. S/480-92/99-NB (DB), dated 11-11-1999, pending the above appeals directing M/s. R.K. Tekcom (India) Limited (one of the present applicants) to deposit certain amounts of duty within eight weeks. There was also a direction to one, Shri K.C. Agarwal and one Shri B.L. Gujar (two other applicants) to deposit certain amounts within the same period.
2. The present application No. E/Misc./718/99-NB (D) was filed on 11-11-1999 itself for recalling the above stay order. Application No. E/Misc./755/99-NB (D) was filed on 28-12-1999 for a modification of the stay order on the grounds stated in the application.
3. We have heard Shri Jitender Singh, learned Advocate for the applicants and Shri M.M. Dubey, learned JDR for the respondent. Ld. JDR has raised a preliminary objection against entertaining these applications. He has submitted that the applications are in the nature of a request for review of the stay order and cannot be considered for want of review power with the Tribunal. In case it is held that the Tribunal has power to consider these applications, ld. JDR submits, the applications should go before the same Members who passed the stay order. These objections of learned JDR has not been rebutted before us.
4. We have carefully examined learned JDR’s objection. We have also noted the precedent of this Tribunal in such matters. In the case of Garg Ispat Udyog Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur [1998 (103) E.L.T. 544 (T)], a Two-Member Bench of this Tribunal has held that for the modification of an order, even if it is an interim order not strictly covered by Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, it would be appropriate if the modification application is dealt with by the same Members who had passed such interim order. We follow this precedent and direct the Registry to post the present applications before the appropriate Bench after taking necessary orders from the Hon’ble President.
5. Having regard to the normal time which may be taken by this Tribunal for final disposal of the applications, we think it is necessary to direct the Central Excise Authorities concerned not to take any coercive action for recovery of the amounts covered by the stay order till final orders are passed in the present applications. We direct them accordingly, for the ends of justice, under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.