Bank guarantee as security was not barred by the stay order wording and could be accepted if otherwise in order.

A stay order required part payment of duty and security for the balance, with a direction expressed as "not Bank Guarantee". The note treats that wording as not excluding a bank guarantee altogether, but as leaving room for its acceptance where the guarantee otherwise satisfied the security requirement. On that reasoning, there was no basis to reject the bank guarantee merely because of its form, and it was to be accepted if found to be in order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the security furnished pursuant to the stay order could be accepted in the form of a bank guarantee despite the direction to furnish security other than bank guarantee.

Analysis: The stay order required deposit of part of the duty and furnishing of security for the balance amount, and the expression "not Bank Guarantee" was treated as indicating that the security was not necessarily excluded merely because it was offered as a bank guarantee. In the circumstances, there was no reason to decline acceptance of the bank guarantee.

Conclusion: The bank guarantee was directed to be accepted if found to be in order, in favour of the assessee.

---