JUDGMENT : Sanjib Banerjee, J. The petitioner complains of the failure by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Zonal Bench to modify a previous order on the ground that a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal had taken a different view in similar circumstances. 2. An appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was entertained by an order of October 28, 2015. Since such appeal was filed prior to August 6, 2014, the provision in Section 35F of the Act pertaining to discretion as to pre-deposit governed the matter. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.6 lakh in addition to the amount of Rs.4.18 lakh already deposited. The further deposit was directed to be made within eight weeks from the date of the order, for the remainder of the demand to remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Compliance was directed to be reported on January 4, 2016 and the order observed that the failure to deposit the amount would result in dismissal of the appeal without further reference. 3. The petitioner did not make the further deposit of Rs.6 lakh in terms of the order dated October 28, 2015. Instead, the petitioner applied for modification of the order of admission and such modification application came to be taken up on January 4, 2016, the date fixed by the order of October 28, 2015 for filing the compliance report. 4. The petitioner refers to an order of the West Zonal Bench reported at 2008 (10) STR 580 to suggest that in similar circumstances the pre-deposit in respect of another appellant had been waived on the ground that the net worth of the relevant company was negative. In paragraph 12 of the relevant judgment of the West Zonal Bench, there was a reference to a Supreme Court judgment by name. The relevant Supreme Court order has been brought. Such order of the Supreme Court of March 7, 2007 is quoted: “Delay condoned. “Leave Granted. “The appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the Tribunal for non-deposit of Rs.1.40 Crores. The assessee complains that it has already made an application pointing out to the Tribunal that the Company is under BIFR. According to the assessee, its application dated NIL September, 2005, being Modification Application No…./2005, is pending even today before the Tribunal. “Leave Granted. “The appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the Tribunal for non-deposit of Rs.1.40 Crores. The assessee complains that it has already made an application pointing out to the Tribunal that the Company is under BIFR. According to the assessee, its application dated NIL September, 2005, being Modification Application No…./2005, is pending even today before the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we direct the Tribunal to decide the Modification Application No…./2005. We also want the Tribunal to record its findings regarding the net worth of the company. If the net worth of the company is found to be negative, then the Tribunal will consider restoration of the appeal to its file and in which event the matter will have to be decided on merits. If, however, the net worth is found to be a positive figure, the Tribunal will say so, give its reasons and dispose of the modification application in accordance with law. “The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly.” 5. Nothing in the order of the Supreme Court amounts to the enunciation of any law that will be binding under Article 141 of the Constitution to the effect that when the net worth of an assessee company is negative, the entire pre-deposit is to be waived. As would appear from the Supreme Court order, it made some observations and left the matter for consideration by the appropriate Tribunal. The order cannot be interpreted to imply that if an assessee with a negative net worth seeks to prefer an appeal, the Tribunal (under the old Section 35F of the Act), would have no discretion but to direct the complete waiver of the pre-deposit. 6. In any event, it was not necessary in the context of the present petition to refer to the order of the Supreme Court at all. It is not the petitioner’s case that the Supreme Court order of 2007 was passed subsequent to the original order of admission of the appeal passed on October 28, 2015. 7. It was for the petitioner to demonstrate on October 28, 2015 when the appeal was taken up for admission as to why there should be no predeposit. It is not the petitioner’s case that the Supreme Court order of 2007 was passed subsequent to the original order of admission of the appeal passed on October 28, 2015. 7. It was for the petitioner to demonstrate on October 28, 2015 when the appeal was taken up for admission as to why there should be no predeposit. Upon the petitioner failing to convince the Tribunal that the entirety of the pre-deposit should be waived, the petitioner was not entitled to carry an application for modification on the basis of an order of a coordinate Bench or an order of the Supreme Court which could have been relied upon on October 28, 2015. In any event, interlocutory orders which permit a judicial or quasi-judicial forum to exercise an element of discretion cannot be, ordinarily, governed by precedents unless the material facts are absolutely identical. The doctrine of precedents as it is applicable to a Tribunal is primarily founded on the larger public policy of the requirement an element of certainty of the outcome in a set of circumstances. The doctrine has more to do with final orders than interlocutory orders. 8. In the present case, the petitioner having suffered an order of October 28, 2015, presumably after citing whatever authorities the petitioner may have had to cite in support of the petitioner’s prayer for waiver or reduction of the pre-deposit, the petitioner was not entitled to seek a modification of the order before the same forum by referring to orders that the petitioner chose not to cite on October 28, 2015. Indeed, the application for modification admitted that the fact that the petitioner company had a negative net worth “had not been brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Tribunal earlier.” However, such application carried no explanation as to why the aspect pertaining to the negative net worth of the company was not alluded to earlier. 9. If orders of admission of appeals are required to be revisited on the flimsiest of pretexts, there would hardly be any time for the appeals to be taken up for hearing. 10. W.P. 1077 (W) of 2016 is utterly unmeritorious and is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.10,000/-. 11. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.