Recovery under Section 11D required an adjudicatory mechanism; without it, recovery proceedings could not proceed.

Proceedings for recovery under Section 11D were not maintainable where no adjudicatory machinery existed to determine and quantify the alleged liability. The Tribunal accepted the High Court view that Section 11D was valid, but held that recovery could not be pursued until the procedure contemplated for recovery under Section 11A was available. Any liability under Section 11D was therefore left pending until the appropriate machinery was established.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings for recovery under Section 11D could be maintained in the absence of machinery for adjudication, determination and quantification of the alleged liability.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted the High Court view that Section 11D was valid, but that no machinery then existed for adjudicating, determining and quantifying the liability, and that recovery could not be pursued until the procedure contemplated for recovery under Section 11A was available.

Conclusion: The recovery proceedings were held not maintainable at that stage, and the liability, if any, under Section 11D was to remain pending until the appropriate machinery was established.

---