https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47783 The court ruled that the respondents could not attach the properties of the petitioner company for the recovery of excise duty without the consent of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), as a scheme under Section 17 was being prepared. The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the attachment order, but granted the respondents the liberty to pursue remedies with permission from the Board. en-us Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47783 The court ruled that the respondents could not attach the properties of the petitioner company for the recovery of excise duty without the consent of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), as a scheme under Section 17 was being prepared. The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the attachment order, but granted the respondents the liberty to pursue remedies with permission from the Board. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47783