Statutory recovery continues despite pending appeal where no stay operates and pre-deposit remains unpaid.

Pendency of an assessee's appeal did not bar recovery under Section 87(c) of the Finance Act, 1994, because the demand remained payable and no stay of recovery was operating. The Court held that the mere filing of an appeal does not suspend the statutory power to distrain movable and immovable property for recovery, especially where the pre-deposit condition for entertaining the appeal had not been complied with. It further noted that hardship or the possibility of further remedies cannot curtail the recovery power or the Court's writ discretion. The attachment notices were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the pendency of the assessee's appeal against the order-in-original barred recovery proceedings under Section 87(c) of the Finance Act, 1994, including attachment of property, when the pre-deposit ordered for entertaining the appeal had not been made.

Analysis: Section 87(c) empowers the Central Excise Officer to recover the amount payable by distraining movable and immovable property until payment. The provision is not restricted by the mere filing or pendency of an appeal. The amount continued to remain payable because the assessee had not complied with the condition imposed by the Court for entertaining the appeal, and no stay was operating against recovery. The Court also held that hardship or the availability of further remedies could not limit the statutory recovery power or the Court's writ discretion.

Conclusion: The pendency of the appeal did not bar action under Section 87(c), and the attachment notices were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Pendency of an appeal does not suspend statutory recovery under Section 87(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 where the demand remains payable and there is no stay of recovery.

---