(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1056 OF 2008 Sarla Performance Fibers Ltd...Petitioner Vs. The Union of India & Ors.......Respondents Mr. Prakash Shah i/b. P.D.S.Legal for the petitioner Mr. Y.S. Bhate,for the respondents. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. DATED: 15TH FEBRUARY,2008 DATED: 15TH FEBRUARY,2008 DATED: 15TH FEBRUARY,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitioners are the appellants before the CESTAT. The appellantshadaplied for waiver of pre-deposit being consignor and not consignee. That application was disposed of by order dated 16th July, 2007. The petitioners were called upon to deposit the amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/-. For the reasons set out in para.3 of the order the application for modification was rejected. While so holding the Tribunal noted that the Tribunal has by and large taken a view that such cases warrant for unconditional stay of waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal found that the petitioners contention was that the A.O. had been taking inconsistent stand. However, this was not advanced by the appellants before them. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Baron International Ltd., where this (-2-) Court took a view that modification can be sought only on grounds arising out of the change in circumstances which was not so in the present case. The application was rejected.. 2. The case of the petitioners is that in similar circumstances in the case of the petitioners themselves where they were consignors the A.O. had held the liability as that of the consignee. It is submitted that these orders though available were not placed before the Tribunal. It does not, however, mean that the Tribunal is not vested with the power if such documents of quasi judicial nature which were available but not produced could always be considered even at the stage of variation of the order. Considering the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal in such cases as set out in para.3 it is true that the production of documents in the possession of the petitioners does not amount to change in the circumstances. Nevertheless there is always an inherent power in the Tribunal to do justice. In these circumstances technicalities by themselves should not stand in the way if otherwise there is merit in the contention of the petitioners.Considering the circumstances, the order in so far as the petitioners are concerned is set aside.The Tribunal is directed to consider the documents produced by the petitioners herein and (-3-) thereafter dispose of the application for modification of the order of pre-deposit according to law. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)