Recovery detention under excise rules is not separately appealable when the underlying adjudication order remains in force.

A detention order issued to recover unpaid duty under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as mere execution of a subsisting adjudication order. Because the underlying adjudication order had not been set aside in the proper appellate forum, the recovery action itself was not an appealable subject-matter before the Tribunal. The appeal against the detention order was therefore held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal lies to the Tribunal against a detention order passed for recovery of duty under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, when the underlying adjudication order remains un-set aside.

Analysis: The detention order was issued only to realise duty that had already been adjudicated and remained unpaid. The appeal was not shown to challenge the original adjudication order before the proper appellate forum, and there was no material to show that the adjudication order had been set aside. In that situation, the recovery action taken in execution of the subsisting adjudication order could not itself be treated as an appealable subject-matter before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The appeal against the detention order was not maintainable.

---