Statutory protection against customs recovery and sick-company status require express legal coverage, not mere reference registration.

Statutory protection from customs recovery under the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 was unavailable because the Customs Act, 1962 was not shown to fall within the Act's scheduled coverage, and the alternative takeover-based protection was not attracted. Mere registration of a reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction did not amount to commencement of enquiry under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, so it did not by itself confer sick-industrial-undertaking status. On both grounds, the request to modify the stay order failed and the deposit condition continued to operate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958, as applied to Gujarat, barred recovery proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) whether mere registration of the company's reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction amounted to commencement of enquiry so as to treat it as a sick industrial undertaking.

Issue (i): Whether the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958, as applied to Gujarat, barred recovery proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The relief-undertakings provision relied upon was confined to the statutory scheme under Section 4(1) of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958. The Customs Act, 1962 was not shown to be included in the schedule to that Act, and the alternative provision concerning an undertaking taken over by the State Government was not attracted on the facts.

Conclusion: The Customs recovery proceedings were not shown to be barred by the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958, and this contention failed against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether mere registration of the company's reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction amounted to commencement of enquiry so as to treat it as a sick industrial undertaking.

Analysis: Mere registration of a reference with the Board was held not to amount to commencement of enquiry under Section 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Registration at the preliminary stage could occur even where the reference was not ultimately sustainable, and that by itself did not establish sick-company status.

Conclusion: Mere registration of the reference did not constitute commencement of enquiry, and the assessee could not claim the protection of sick-industrial-undertaking status on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The application for modification of the stay order failed on both grounds and was dismissed, with the deposit condition left to operate.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory protection from recovery cannot be inferred unless the relevant enactment expressly applies, and mere registration of a reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction does not, by itself, amount to commencement of enquiry or confer sick-industrial-undertaking status.

---