JUDGMENT : The present appeal is directed against the interim order dated 15.06.2016 passed by the Tribunal, whereby, the application for modification of the interim order passed earlier on 06.08.2015 has been rejected. 2. We have heard Mr. Chidananda Urs, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is, that when the Tribunal passed the order dated 06.08.2015, there was no decision of Gujarat High Court. But, subsequently Gujarat High Court in its decision in the case of Colourtex Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India, reported at 2016 (332) E.L.T. 109 (GUJ.) has taken a view, that if the matter is referred to larger Bench, unconditional stay deserves to be granted. Learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid can be termed as ‘change in the circumstances’ enabling the Tribunal to consider the application for modification. He contended that the Tribunal in the order dated 06.08.2015 had taken a note of the order dated 25.03.2015 passed by Madras High Court. But, when the Tribunal passed the order on 06.08.2015, Madras High Court had taken the another view in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Trichy Vs. Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd., reported at 2015 (325) E.L.T. 644 (Mad.) and hence, it could be said as additional ground for the Tribunal to treat as change in the circumstances, which could not be brought to its notice. Hence, the application for modification ought to have been allowed by the Tribunal. He submitted that consideration of the facts and circumstances as in the case of similarly situated persons, the matter is referred to the larger Bench, but unconditional stay was required to be granted, which has not been granted. Therefore, the present appeal. 4. We may record that when the order dated 06.08.2015 was passed by the Tribunal on the stay application, wherein, the stay came to be granted on a condition to deposit 50% of the amount with proportionate interest, the said order is accepted by the appellant in as much as the said order was not challenged before higher judicial forum. However, after a period of about nine months, another application has been filed for modification of the order dated 06.08.2015, seeking unconditional stay. The Tribunal found that there is no change in the circumstances and therefore, rejected the application. 5. However, after a period of about nine months, another application has been filed for modification of the order dated 06.08.2015, seeking unconditional stay. The Tribunal found that there is no change in the circumstances and therefore, rejected the application. 5. When, we put a question to the learned counsel for the appellant that, if there is subsequent change in the case law, whether such would be a valid ground for review of the earlier interim order or not, learned counsel answered in negative. 6. In the circumstances, merely because Gujarat High Court has taken a different view subsequently in the case of Colourtex Industries Ltd., (supra), it cannot be said that there is any valid ground for review or rectification/modification of the earlier order. 7. It is hardly required to be stated that in order to give sanctity to the order passed by the judicial forum, interim order, though may not operate for all time to come, but once interim order is passed, unless there is change in the circumstances, the judicial forum cannot modify or review its own order. Such change in the circumstances should be the circumstances rather more on facts. 8. So far as appellant is concerned, for a period of about nine months though the order has operated, no deposit is made as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant and after a period of about nine months, the application was made. There are no change in the circumstances so far as the factual aspect is concerned. Subsequent change in law, in our opinion cannot be said to be a valid ground for modification of the earlier interim order, which is accepted by the parties and remained challenged before any forum. Even in the present appeal also, the appellant has not challenged the order dated 06.08.2015 but the challenge is to subsequent order, whereby, the application for modification was rejected. 9. In view of the above, as such, on the facts and circumstances, we do not find that the Tribunal having committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application. 10. Apart from the above, the appeal has to be limited to the question of law. The Tribunal has exercised the judicial discretion and [the exercise of the discretion by the Tribunal] cannot said to be erroneous on the face of it. Even otherwise, no question of law would arise. 11. 10. Apart from the above, the appeal has to be limited to the question of law. The Tribunal has exercised the judicial discretion and [the exercise of the discretion by the Tribunal] cannot said to be erroneous on the face of it. Even otherwise, no question of law would arise. 11. In our prima facie view, the litigation appears to be a frivolous litigation to delay the recovery of the revenue. If the appellant was dissatisfied with the first conditional order for deposit of 50%, nothing prevented the appellant to approach the higher forum. The appellant has merrily enjoyed the time. The application filed for modification has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. 12. Under the circumstances, we find that the appellant should be saddled with the cost for wasting of public time for about 45 minutes. Considering the facts and circumstances, the amount to be deposited being Rs.65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Lakhs only), as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant, which has been delayed for such a long period, we find that the appropriate cost should be Rs.20,000/- and the appellant be directed to deposit the said amount with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the benefit of the poor litigants. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with the cost of Rs.20,000/- and the appellant shall deposit the cost within two weeks period from today with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Upon receipt produced the condition shall stand complied with. If the cost is not deposited, office to place the matter for appropriate action. In view of dismissal of the above appeal, I.A. No. 1 of 2016 does not survive for consideration. Hence, I.A. No. 1 of 2016 is disposed of.