https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46980 Machinery sealed under the applicable excise framework for hot air stenter units was not shown to have been attached or seized for recovery of dues, and the department's communications stated that there was no legal embargo on the petitioner using the machine in accordance with the governing capacity-determination rules. The prior ownership dispute had already been resolved in the petitioner's favour, and the seal was placed in the context of the petitioner's own representation that the factory was not workable or excisable. In these circumstances, the communications were treated as lawful and writ interference was declined. en-us Mon, 08 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:18:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46980 Machinery sealed under the applicable excise framework for hot air stenter units was not shown to have been attached or seized for recovery of dues, and the department's communications stated that there was no legal embargo on the petitioner using the machine in accordance with the governing capacity-determination rules. The prior ownership dispute had already been resolved in the petitioner's favour, and the seal was placed in the context of the petitioner's own representation that the factory was not workable or excisable. In these circumstances, the communications were treated as lawful and writ interference was declined. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46980