Restoration of appeal revives connected stay protection and bars independent recovery action during pendency.

Restoration of an appeal revived the connected stay application and stay order, so recovery proceedings could not continue independently while the restored appeal remained pending. The record showed compliance with the High Court's deposit and undertaking directions, and there was no basis to require a fresh stay order after restoration. On that footing, the detention notice issued for recovery of customs duty was lifted, and the Department's contrary stand was found unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether restoration of the appeal also revived the stay order and stayed recovery proceedings, and whether the detention notice issued for recovery of customs duty was liable to be lifted.

Analysis: The appeal had been dismissed for default and later restored. Once the appeal was restored, the ancillary proceedings connected with it, including the stay application and the stay order, stood restored as well. The record showed compliance with the High Court's direction regarding deposit and undertaking, and there was no valid basis to insist on a separate order for staying recovery after restoration of the appeal. The Department's contrary stand was held to be unwarranted.

Conclusion: The stay order was restored and continued to operate, recovery proceedings were stayed during pendency of the appeal, and the detention notice was lifted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Restoration of the appeal revived the connected stay protection and barred coercive recovery while the appeal remained pending.

Ratio Decidendi: When an appeal is restored, connected interlocutory and stay orders ordinarily revive with it, and recovery proceedings cannot continue independently during the pendency of the restored appeal.

---