Court clarifies release of goods, assesses bond percentages. Buyer can provide bond for differential duty. Goods at branch offices to clear within three weeks.

The court clarified the provisional release of goods and assessment order, directing compliance with specified bond and bank guarantee percentages. The Assistant Commissioner's demand for a 100% bank guarantee was deemed excessive, emphasizing the need to adhere to the court's directives. To safeguard Revenue's interest, the court allowed the buyer to provide a bond for any differential duty. Additionally, goods at branch offices were ordered to be cleared within three weeks for proper handling by the Excise Department. The court made the rule absolute, with specified directions and permitted direct service to relevant Respondents.

---

---

Issues:
Clarification of court order for provisional assessment and bond requirement.

Analysis:
The Applicants filed an application seeking clarification of the court order passed on 13-1-2010, directing provisional release of goods and assessment upon furnishing a bond and security. The Respondent Authorities demanded a bank guarantee of Rs. 74,28,500/-, contrary to court directions requiring a bank guarantee of 25% of the bond value. The Assistant Commissioner's demand for 100% bank guarantee was deemed excessive by the court.

The court emphasized that the order of 13-1-2010 was clear, directing provisional release and assessment within six months. The Revenue's grievance with the order was not justified, and the Assistant Commissioner was directed to comply with the court's order, requiring a bond and bank guarantee as per specified percentages.

To protect the Revenue's interest, the court accepted the submission that the sole buyer of the goods would provide a bond for any differential duty. The court also addressed the issue of goods lying at branch offices, directing their clearance within three weeks to enable the Excise Department to deal with them appropriately.

The court disposed of the application, making the rule absolute with the provided directions. Direct service to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was permitted as part of the judgment.

---