Interim stay extension and bar on coercive detention pending stay application led to release of finished goods.

Interim stay in the appeal was extended because the Larger Bench ruling in IPCL, as upheld by the Supreme Court, supported continuation of protection pending disposal of the appeal. Detention of finished goods was held unsustainable while the application for extension of stay remained pending, as the Board's circular barred coercive action in that situation. The detention order was set aside and release of the goods was directed, with the miscellaneous applications allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the interim stay granted in the appeal deserved extension; (ii) whether detention of the finished goods could be sustained when the application for extension of stay was pending.

Issue (i): Whether the interim stay granted in the appeal deserved extension.

Analysis: The extension was considered in light of the Larger Bench decision in IPCL, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court, and the stay was to continue pending disposal of the appeal.

Conclusion: The request for extension of stay was allowed.

Issue (ii): Whether detention of the finished goods could be sustained when the application for extension of stay was pending.

Analysis: The Board's circular provided that coercive measures should not be adopted where an application for extension of stay is pending before the Tribunal. The detention of the finished goods was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The detention order was set aside and release of the goods was directed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained both continuation of interim protection and relief against detention of its finished goods, resulting in allowance of the miscellaneous applications.

---