https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76629 Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 barred coercive recovery measures against the sick company during the relevant period, so the direction to pre-deposit penalty and the attachment proceedings against its properties were unsustainable. Excise duty collected after reference could be considered for pre-deposit purposes, but penalty stood on a different footing and remained within the statutory protection. The company's director could not be fastened with duty liability or personal penalty in the absence of an express statutory provision, including under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The impugned pre-deposit, dismissal for non-compliance, and attachment orders were quashed and the appeal restored for merits. en-us Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Jul 2013 16:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76629 Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 barred coercive recovery measures against the sick company during the relevant period, so the direction to pre-deposit penalty and the attachment proceedings against its properties were unsustainable. Excise duty collected after reference could be considered for pre-deposit purposes, but penalty stood on a different footing and remained within the statutory protection. The company's director could not be fastened with duty liability or personal penalty in the absence of an express statutory provision, including under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The impugned pre-deposit, dismissal for non-compliance, and attachment orders were quashed and the appeal restored for merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76629