Jurisdiction over detention for predecessor excise dues remitted for fresh adjudication, with interim protection continued.

Jurisdiction to detain a purchaser's plant and machinery for recovery of excise dues of the previous owner was treated as the core issue. The Court held that the objection went to the root of the matter and noted that the authorities had not examined whether the department could enforce predecessor liabilities against the new owner by detention. It therefore declined to decide the merits and remitted the jurisdictional and detention-related plea to the competent authority for fresh adjudication, along with the remaining contentions. Interim protection was continued until that decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the machinery and plant purchased by the petitioner could be detained for recovery of excise dues of the previous owner and whether the departmental action was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The jurisdictional objection went to the root of the matter. The challenge raised a foundational question whether, in the facts stated, the department had any authority to enforce the predecessor's excise liabilities against the new owner by detaining the plant and machinery. Since that issue had not been examined at any stage by the authorities, the Court declined to decide the merits itself and directed the competent authority to adjudicate the plea afresh along with the other contentions raised by the petitioner. Interim protection was continued until such adjudication.

Conclusion: The petition was allowed to the limited extent of remitting the jurisdictional and detention-related issue to the Assistant Commissioner for decision; the petitioner obtained interim relief pending that decision.

Final Conclusion: The controversy was sent back for fresh adjudication on the core jurisdictional question, leaving all merits open before the departmental authority.

---