Detention as recovery aid under excise law is not discriminatory when it applies uniformly to all defaulters.

Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is described as a measure in aid of recovery, not an alternative mode of realisation, because it permits detention of goods, plant and machinery to compel payment and secure assets for eventual recovery of excise duty. It is said to apply uniformly to all defaulters and therefore does not create hostile discrimination merely because it is more onerous than the ordinary recovery machinery under Section 11 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The provision is accordingly treated as a valid ancillary recovery mechanism and not violative of Article 14.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because it permitted detention of goods, plant and machinery for recovery of excise dues in a manner more onerous than the recovery modes under Section 11 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: Section 11 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 provides the statutory modes for recovery of excise duty, including deduction from money due, attachment and sale of excisable goods, and certificate proceedings. Rule 230, framed under Section 37(2)(xiii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, is not an alternative mode of realisation but a measure in aid of recovery, enabling detention of goods and related assets to compel payment and secure assets for eventual recovery. Because the rule applies to all defaulters and is designed to exact payment rather than to create an arbitrary classification between classes of defaulters, it does not amount to hostile discrimination. The existence of similar detention provisions in customs legislation also supports its validity.

Conclusion: Rule 230 is not violative of Article 14 and is a valid ancillary mechanism for compelling payment of excise duty.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory detention provision that operates as a general measure in aid of recovery and applies uniformly to all defaulters is not discriminatory merely because it is more onerous than the ordinary recovery machinery.

---