https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43294 Detention of goods for recovery of disputed excise duty was premature where appeals and stay applications against the demands were still pending. For some consignments, time to pay had already been granted after rejection of stay, so immediate coercive recovery was not justified; for the remaining demands, the stay applications remained undecided, and recovery should ordinarily not proceed while such applications are pending before the appellate authority. Relying on the applicable circular, the Court found the detention unfair and unwarranted, and quashed the detention order. en-us Tue, 05 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43294 Detention of goods for recovery of disputed excise duty was premature where appeals and stay applications against the demands were still pending. For some consignments, time to pay had already been granted after rejection of stay, so immediate coercive recovery was not justified; for the remaining demands, the stay applications remained undecided, and recovery should ordinarily not proceed while such applications are pending before the appellate authority. Relying on the applicable circular, the Court found the detention unfair and unwarranted, and quashed the detention order. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43294