M. C. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs : " (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Detention Memos, dated 30-12-1999 and 31-12-1999 (Annexures 19a, 19f and 20); (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to run the Unit forthwith. " ( 2 ) THE petitioners case is that it has an industrial unit manufacturing excisable goods i. e. M. S. Ingots/runner Riser. Under Section 3a of the Central Excise Act, the Central Government has notified the aforesaid commodity and, therefore. . . in respect of the goods manufactured by the petitioner. . . excise duty is payable on the basis of. . . capacity of production which is to be determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise in accordance with the Induction Furnace annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. In pursuance of this power, the Commissioner of central Excise determined the annual capacity of the production of the petitioners factory that contains two furnaces at. . . metric tonnes by an order, dated 19-3-1996 which are difference from 1-9-1997. It is claimed that since the electric connection of the petitioners unit was disconnected, the petitioner had to shut down the production in both the furnaces and information of the shut down was given to the authorities concerned by a letter, dated 27-5-1998. During the period of closure, the petitioner moved two applications, dated 29th of June, 1998 and 2nd of July, 1998 requesting them to permit the petitioner to reduce the size of both the furnaces which will result in the reduction of their capacity from 1 MTs to 3 MTs. The respondent No. 2 vide letter, dated 5-8-1998 is alleged to have granted permission to change the installed capacity. The petitioner accordingly changed one furnace and vide a letter, dated 28th of August, 1998, made a request to redetermine the annual capacity of production and to assess the duty liability afresh. Subsequently when the power connection was restored, the petitioner informed the authorities that he will be starting production from one furnace only from 30-8-1998. The electric connection was restored for. . . furnace only and by a letter, dated. . . Subsequently when the power connection was restored, the petitioner informed the authorities that he will be starting production from one furnace only from 30-8-1998. The electric connection was restored for. . . furnace only and by a letter, dated. . . the petitioner made a request to surrender the second furnace which could not be run for want of electricity. It is claimed that this contention of the petitioner was verified and a verification report, dated 26-11-1998 has already been submitted. By an order dated 24-3-1999, the commissioner of Central Excise is said to have redetermined the actual capacity of production of one furnace from 13376 MTs. To 10567. 52 MTs. but he made no order regarding the second furnace on the ground that the same was not got verified. It is claimed that the necessary papers for verification had already been submitted by the petitioner vide various letters. Against the order, dated 24-3-1999, the petitioner claims that it has filed an appeal before the Customs, excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi which is pending. Vide a letter, dated 1-4-1999 the petitioner informed the respondents that he would be starting production from the second furnace with a changed capacity from 8 AM on 1-4-1999. Regarding the period during which the petitioners unit remained closed, the petitioner has preferred a claim for abatement of excise duty in terms of Section 3a (3) read with Rule 96zo (2 ). It is claimed that the petitioner has paid the entire duty as per installed capacity. . . claimed that after the verification of. . . the furnace, the Commissioner of Central Excise. . . and to refix the annual production capacity as. . . under Section 4 and also to decide the abatement claim preferred by the petitioner on 3-11-1999 but the same has not been done. However, on 30-12-1999 the respondent No. 3 i. e. the Superintendent, Central Excise visited the premises of the petitioner and started misbehaving with the staff of the petitioner and passed a detention memo whereby two furnaces, one diesel generating set, three overhead cranes and two electric transformers were detained under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the ground that the central excise dues amounting to rs. 98 lacs were due from the petitioner. A copy of the detention memo is Annexure 19a to the petition. 98 lacs were due from the petitioner. A copy of the detention memo is Annexure 19a to the petition. The respondents also detained finished goods worth about Rs. 49,94,990/- vide another detention memo of the same date, a copy of which is Annexure 19b. Simultaneously on the same date, the respondents visited the residential premises of the Managing Director of the petitioners company and detained several household goods including jewellery, relief bonds, FDRs. and cash. The total value of those assets detained from the residence is stated to be more than Rs. 1. 5 crores. It is claimed that the entire exercise is illegal. In addition, one of the employees of the petitioner was also taken into custody and was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, kanpur for remand. It is claimed that the detention of the various goods was made as a sequel to an first information report lodged by the respondents against the Managing Director of the company on 30-12-1999 in which many baseless allegations were made against him. It is claimed that no demand what-so-ever was pending against the petitioner because the various claims, as mentioned above, were yet to be adjudicated and the duty liability cannot be determined without adjudicating the claims and refixing the capacity of the second furnace. It is claimed that no notice of demand was issued before embarking upon the detention. It is claimed. that the petitioner is paying excise duty of Rs. 10 lacs per month and the action of the respondents in detaining the various properties is resulting in the stop-* page of production and revenue loss. ( 3 ) THE respondents have filed a counter affidavit and also supplementary affidavit. It is claimed that in terms of Section 3a of the Central Excise Act, 1944, excise duty is fixed with respect to the installed capacity of furnaces in the factory and is not dependent on the actual production and clearance of the finished goods and in accordance with the determined annual capacity of production, more than Rs. 98 lacs are in arrears as excise duty from the petitioner. It is claimed that though the abatement claim pertains to the periods 28-5-1998 to 29-8-1998 and 30-8-1998 to 31-3-1999, the application for abatement was made as late as 3-11-1999. 98 lacs are in arrears as excise duty from the petitioner. It is claimed that though the abatement claim pertains to the periods 28-5-1998 to 29-8-1998 and 30-8-1998 to 31-3-1999, the application for abatement was made as late as 3-11-1999. It is claimed that during the raid conducted on the premises of the petitioner, it was found that the actual capacity of both the furnaces was more than what was declared and the parameters of the crucible governing the capacity of the furnace were found changed resulting in the evasion of excise duty of more than rs. 3 lacs per month. It is claimed that the demand of the excise duty was made through various letters, dated 21-4-1998, 29-4-1998, 8-6-1998, 2-6-1999 and 16-7-1999, copies of which have been annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure 3 and, therefore, it is wrong to allege that no notice of demand was served before the action of detention of the goods. It is claimed that inspite of the said letters, the petitioner had failed to pay excise duty in accordance with the annual production capacity determined by the Commissioner vide orders, dated 19-3-1998 and 24-3-1999 and that under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, the respondents were entitled to detain the goods. It is admitted that by letter, dated 3-11-1999, the petitioners submitted an abatement claim for the periods 28-5-1998 to 29-8-1998 and 30-8-1998 to 31-3-1999. It is claimed that the abatement claim is not admissible as the petitioner had failed to follow the specific and mandatory procedure as laid down under Section 96zo (2) of the Central Excise rules, 1944 read with Trade Notice No. 121/97, dated 7-10-1997 etc. A show cause notice to this effect has been issued to the petitioner vide a letter, dated 7-1-2000 and the matter is posted for personal hearing on 24-1-2000. Regarding the reduction of the capacity of the second furnace, it is stated that the parameters thereof have been verified on 17-11-1999 and the matter is under process. ( 4 ) IT is claimed that the respondents entertained a reasonable belief that incriminating documents relating to evasion of excise duty in respect of the petitioner and other units controlled by the petitioner indirectly, namely M/s. Orai Food Products Pvt. Ltd. , M/s. Nigotia and Co. ( 4 ) IT is claimed that the respondents entertained a reasonable belief that incriminating documents relating to evasion of excise duty in respect of the petitioner and other units controlled by the petitioner indirectly, namely M/s. Orai Food Products Pvt. Ltd. , M/s. Nigotia and Co. , might be available at the residential premises of the Managing Director of the petitioner Sri Pradeep kumar Nigotia, a raid was conducted at the said premises. It is claimed that during the raid on the premises of M/s. Orai Food Products Pvt. Ltd. , a group of 50-60 persons assaulted the Excise officers and during the search at the residential premises of Sri Pradeep Kumar Gupta (Nigotia)various other properties including unlicensed fire arms were recovered. It is claimed that the seizure of the articles found at the residential premises of Sri Pradeep Kumar Nigotia was made under the provisions of Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 121 of the customs Act, 1962 on the belief that the properties represent the sale proceeds of excisable goods clandestinely removed without payment of central excise duty. ( 5 ) WE have heard Sri S. P. Gupta, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pankaj Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. N. Srivastava, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. ( 6 ) AS is evident, the only relief claimed in this petition is regarding the detention memos. The detention has been made under the provisions of Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which stands as under : "rule 230. Goods, plant and machinery chargeable with duty not paid. ( 6 ) AS is evident, the only relief claimed in this petition is regarding the detention memos. The detention has been made under the provisions of Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which stands as under : "rule 230. Goods, plant and machinery chargeable with duty not paid. (1) When the duty leviable on any goods is owing from or by any person carrying on trade or business, whether as a producer, manufacturer or as dealer in such goods, all excisable goods, and all materials and preparations, from which any such goods are made, and all plant, machinery, vessels, utensils, implements and articles for making or manufacturing or producing any such goods, or preparing any materials, or by which the trade or business is carried on, in the custody of possession of the person carrying on such trade or business, or in the custody or possession of any agent or other person in trust for or for the use of the person carrying on such trade or business, may be detained for the purpose of exacting such duty; and any office duly authorised by general or special order of the Central Board of Excise and Customs or the commissioner may detain such goods, materials, preparations, plant, machinery, vessels, utensils and articles until such duties or any sums recoverable in lieu thereof are paid or recovered. (2) Where any such person transfers or otherwise disposes of his business in whole or in part, or effects any change in the ownership thereof, in consequence of which he is succeeded in the business or trade or part thereof by any other person or persons, all excisable goods, materials, preparations, plant, machinery, vessels, utensils, implements and articles in the custody or possession of the person or persons succeeding may also be detained for the purpose of exacting duty due from the producer, manufacturer or dealer up to the time of such transfer, disposal or change, whether such duty has been assessed before such transfer, disposal or change, but has remained unpaid, or is assessed thereafter. " ( 7 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner has made a claim for abatement of excise duty for the period referred to above and also for the redetermination of its actual capacity of production on the ground of the reduction of the capacity of two furnances. " ( 7 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner has made a claim for abatement of excise duty for the period referred to above and also for the redetermination of its actual capacity of production on the ground of the reduction of the capacity of two furnances. No amount is due from the petitioner towards the excise duty as the petitioner has been paid excise duty of about Rs. 10 lacs per month. It was not disputed before us that the excise duty payable is calculated on the basis of the Commissioners determination dated 19-3-1998 and redetermination vide order, dated 24-3-1999, a sum of Rs. 98 lacs or thereabout remains outstanding against the petitioner. The petitioners contention is that the claims for abatement and redetermination of the annual production capacity are pending before the commissioner (CEGAT) etc. and, therefore, the. . . the respondents in taking coercive steps towards the recovery of the disputed dues by the detention of the petitioners properties is illegal. It is also claimed that Section 230 only authorises the detention of the goods to prevent their transfer, disposal or change and it does not permit the authorities concerned to put their seals on the manufacturing plant and machinery and thus force the closure of the factory resulting in the irreparable loss to the petitioner and to the labour employed in the factory. It was also pointed out that finished goods that have been detained themselves are of the value of Rs. 40 lacs or more as shown in the detention memo itself and there was no justification for detaining the factory apparatus. We find that under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, an order of detention is appealable to the Commissioner of Appeals and the justiciability and propriety of an order of detention can be more effectively stated before the appellate authority. The petitioner can also approach the Commissioner of Central Excise making grievances of the detention and at the hearing it was pointed out that the petitioner has actually moved an application for the purpose before the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Division Jhansi. The petitioners claims for determination of the actual capacity of production of the furnaces is pending at various stages and the claim or abatement is also pending before the Commissioner. Commissioner, Central Excise, Division Jhansi. The petitioners claims for determination of the actual capacity of production of the furnaces is pending at various stages and the claim or abatement is also pending before the Commissioner. It may require to be disposed of expeditiously and it is either on the appellate side or on the administrative side that a proper decision can be taken whether the detention should be partly or wholly removed. In our opinion in the circumstances, referred to above, the High Court is not a proper forum for determining whether the order of detention the wholly or partially justified or not. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, as regards the action of the respondents in sealing the petitioners furnaces and in contending that in view of the detention, the petitioner cannot use its plant and machinery, we are of the view that the action of the respondents and their contention is absolutely untenable. Rule 230 provides only for detention of the plant and machinery, vessels, utensils, implements and articles for manufacturing or producing any such goods and the purpose of detention is to exact the duty remaining outstanding and to prevent a person from transferring or otherwise disposing of the same. Thus, only such transfer or disposal of the property is prohibited or may make the same not available for sale for realisation of the duty. There is nothing in Rule 230 to show that the detention has the effect of preventing the person concerned from using the property in the normal course and yet keep the same available for a sale, in accordance with the decisions of the Act or the Rules. In the present case the manufacturing apparatus of the petitioner has been detained which consists of two furnaces which have been sealed, one diesel generating set, three overhead cranes and two electric transformers. We are of the view that in spite of their detention under Section 230, the petitioner has a right to use the same for the production of the goods and it is prohibited only from transferring or otherwise disposal of the same. Mere user does not amount to transfer or disposal otherwise. The petition, therefore, deserves to succeed only to the extent that the respondents should forthwith remove their seals, if any, from the aforesaid items of plant and machinery. Mere user does not amount to transfer or disposal otherwise. The petition, therefore, deserves to succeed only to the extent that the respondents should forthwith remove their seals, if any, from the aforesaid items of plant and machinery. ( 9 ) AS regards the alleged detention of the movable goods found at the residence of the Managing director, Sri Pradeep Kumar Gupta (Nigotia), a list of the articles seized shows prima facie that almost everything valuable has been seized including mangal sutras and small ornaments like rings and it is amazing that without any material, the respondents could believe that they represent the sale proceeds of excisable goods clandestinely removed without payment of duty. However, the petitioner M/s. Ram Shree Steels (P) Ltd. does not claimed to be the owner of the said goods and, therefore, we need not deal with the propriety of their seizure which is claimed to be under Section 12 of the Central Excise Act read with Section 121 of the Customs Act. ( 10 ) IN view of the above discussions, the writ petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to remove forthwith any seal etc. from the petitioners furnaces, one diesel generating set, three overhead cranes and two electric transformers and though their detention under Section 230 of the Central Excise Rules will continue till otherwise ordered by the appropriate authority, the petitioner may use them for running its factory. In other respects, the writ petition stands dismissed. We make no order as to costs. .