Coercive recovery of disputed excise duty was held premature while stay applications remained pending before the appellate authority.

Detention of goods for recovery of disputed excise duty was premature where appeals and stay applications against the demands were still pending. For some consignments, time to pay had already been granted after rejection of stay, so immediate coercive recovery was not justified; for the remaining demands, the stay applications remained undecided, and recovery should ordinarily not proceed while such applications are pending before the appellate authority. Relying on the applicable circular, the Court found the detention unfair and unwarranted, and quashed the detention order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention of goods for recovery of excise duty was premature and invalid while appeals and stay applications against the disputed demands were pending.

Analysis: The detention order covered multiple duty demands. For some items, the petitioner had already obtained time for payment after rejection of stay applications, making immediate coercive recovery premature. For the remaining items, the stay applications in the pending appeals were still undecided. The Court relied on the Central Board circular stating that recovery should not ordinarily be pursued while stay or waiver applications remain pending before the appellate authority. In these circumstances, the detention of goods for recovery of the disputed duty was held to be unfair and not warranted.

Conclusion: The detention order was quashed and the writ petition was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Coercive recovery of disputed excise duty should not be pursued while stay applications against the demand are pending before the appellate authority, and detention of goods in such circumstances is premature and unfair.

---