Alternative recovery modes for excise dues and land revenue recovery against immovable property were treated as permissible under the applicable law.

Section 11 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was read as providing alternative modes for recovery of excise dues: deduction from money due, attachment and sale of excisable goods, or a certificate to the Collector for recovery as arrears of land revenue. The sequence was treated as discretionary rather than mandatory, so non-use of one mode did not invalidate resort to another. The Court also noted that recovery against immovable property as arrears of land revenue remained permissible where the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 did not apply to the relevant area. On that basis, the recovery proceedings were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether recovery of excise dues under Section 11 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 required exhaustion of deduction from money due or sale of excisable goods before issuance of a certificate to the Collector; (ii) whether the Collector could proceed against the petitioner's immovable property under the land revenue recovery process in the absence of applicability of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

Issue (i): Whether recovery of excise dues under Section 11 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 required exhaustion of deduction from money due or sale of excisable goods before issuance of a certificate to the Collector.

Analysis: The recovery provision was read as conferring alternative modes of recovery. The officer empowered to levy duty could deduct the amount from money owing to the assessee or recover it by attachment and sale of excisable goods, and where that course was not appropriate, prepare a certificate for recovery by the Collector as arrears of land revenue. The use of these methods was treated as discretionary, not mandatory, and the Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction with the administrative choice made on the facts that the goods were said to have no market value.

Conclusion: The challenge failed on this issue and the recovery certificate could not be faulted.

Issue (ii): Whether the Collector could proceed against the petitioner's immovable property under the land revenue recovery process in the absence of applicability of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

Analysis: The Court held that the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 displaced the Land Revenue Act only in areas to which it applied. On the material before the Court, the property was treated as situated in a town area where that Act did not apply. In that situation, recovery as arrears of land revenue was held to be permissible.

Conclusion: The Collector was competent to proceed against the property and no mandamus could be issued restraining attachment and sale.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected in its entirety, and the recovery proceedings were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal recovery provision confers alternative methods of recovery, the choice among them is discretionary unless the statute makes a particular sequence mandatory; recovery as arrears of land revenue is valid where the land revenue law remains applicable in the relevant area.

---