Stay of excise demand recovery pending revision where adjudication was challenged for denial of cross-examination and related procedural defects.

Recovery of an excise demand arising from alleged manufacture and clandestine removal was stayed because revisional proceedings were still pending and the adjudication was said to be assailable, including for lack of cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were relied upon. Execution of the demand was treated as inappropriate until the revision was decided, and the revisional authority was directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: Whether recovery of the excise demand could be stayed pending disposal of the revision application.

Analysis: The demand arose from an adjudication imposing duty for alleged manufacture and clandestine removal of excisable goods. The petitioner sought protection on the ground that the revision was pending and that the adjudication was assailable, including for want of opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were relied upon. In the circumstances, execution of the demand was considered inappropriate until the revisional proceedings were concluded.

Outcome: Stay of execution of the demand was granted pending disposal of the revision application under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the revisional authority was directed to dispose of the revision expeditiously.

---