Premature challenge to excise dues attachment fails where conditional conveyance and first charge remain subject to later enforcement

A challenge to attachment of property for Central Excise dues was considered premature where the Corporation had already sold the property after default, delivered possession, and executed a conditional conveyance deed reserving the first charge until all dues were paid. The Court noted that the grievance could not be entertained at that stage because the appropriate time to test enforcement of the claimed charge would arise only when the property was actually proceeded against for recovery of the excise dues. The appellant was therefore not entitled to immediate interference against the attachment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could successfully challenge the attachment of the property for Central Excise dues and assert an immediate first charge over the property after sale under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951.

Analysis: The property had been sold by the Corporation after default, possession had been delivered, and a conditional conveyance deed had been executed reserving the first charge until payment of all dues. In these circumstances, the grievance raised against the attachment for Central Excise dues was not one warranting interference at this stage. The Court agreed that the appropriate stage for enforcement of the claimed charge would arise only when the property is proceeded against for recovery of the excise dues.

Conclusion: The challenge was held to be premature and the appellant was not entitled to interference.

---