Excise sealing of stenter machinery and no legal embargo on use justified refusal of writ interference.

Machinery sealed under the applicable excise framework for hot air stenter units was not shown to have been attached or seized for recovery of dues, and the department's communications stated that there was no legal embargo on the petitioner using the machine in accordance with the governing capacity-determination rules. The prior ownership dispute had already been resolved in the petitioner's favour, and the seal was placed in the context of the petitioner's own representation that the factory was not workable or excisable. In these circumstances, the communications were treated as lawful and writ interference was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned communications refusing to lift the seal on the stenter machine and permitting its use were illegal, warranting writ interference.

Analysis: The ownership dispute over the stenter machine had already been resolved in favour of the petitioner by arbitration, and the department had informed the petitioner that there was no legal embargo on commencing manufacturing activity. The machine had been sealed in connection with the applicable excise regime for hot air stenter units and not as a seizure or attachment in recovery of any dues against the petitioner. The seal was also placed in response to the petitioner's own representation that the factory was no longer working or workable and excisable, and the impugned communications merely recorded that the petitioner was free to use the machinery in accordance with the governing capacity-determination rules.

Conclusion: The communications were held to be lawful and no interference was warranted; the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where machinery is sealed under the applicable excise framework and the department communicates that there is no legal embargo on its use, writ interference is not justified absent any illegality in the sealing or the subsequent communication.

---