Recovery of confirmed duty and penalty is not separately appealable when no stay exists; Tribunal stay is the proper remedy.

Recovery of confirmed duty and penalty under an order already under challenge was treated as enforcement of an existing demand, not as a separate appealable action before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the absence of any stay from the appellate forum, the recovery letter was held to be in accordance with law. The aggrieved party's proper remedy was to seek stay from the Tribunal rather than challenge the recovery before the Commissioner (Appeals). The dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether recovery of confirmed duty and penalty pursuant to an order already under challenge could be appealed against before the Commissioner (Appeals), and whether dismissal of such appeal as not sustainable was justified.

Analysis: The recovery letter merely enforced confirmed demands in the absence of any stay from the appellate forum. Such recovery action was held to be in accordance with law and not separately appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals). The proper course for the aggrieved party was to seek stay from the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, and the present appeal was rejected.

---