https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47885 The court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the Central Excise Department's priority in debt recovery over the Petitioner Bank. The court found that the bank's claim did not supersede the government's claim due to incomplete rights under the hypothecation deed. The attachment of the Third Respondent's properties by the Department was deemed legal, and the Third Respondent's request to pay Central Excise dues in installments was denied for non-compliance with court orders. Interim orders were vacated, and no costs were awarded. en-us Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:23:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47885 The court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the Central Excise Department's priority in debt recovery over the Petitioner Bank. The court found that the bank's claim did not supersede the government's claim due to incomplete rights under the hypothecation deed. The attachment of the Third Respondent's properties by the Department was deemed legal, and the Third Respondent's request to pay Central Excise dues in installments was denied for non-compliance with court orders. Interim orders were vacated, and no costs were awarded. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47885