hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 179 OF 1991 Hind Rectifiers Limited ... Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Sujay Kantawala with Mr. Brijesh Pathak i/by Kantawala & Co. for hte Petitenr. Mr. P.S. Jetly with Mr. Rajinder Kumar for Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 05, 2009 P.C. It is not necessary to set out facts in detail. It is the case of the Petitioner that as the goods which may be described as Silicon Defused Chips are covered by Notification No. 83-Cus of 1987 and 142-Cus of 1999. At the interim stage, the goods were released on the Petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for difference of duty and also the executing of ITC Bond. The Petitioner has done the same. In our opinion, in such matters appropriate order would be to ask the Assessing Officer to complete final assessment and to consider whether the benefit of Notification as claimed by the Petitioner is available to him. In the light of the above, the Petition disposed of with a direction to the Assessing Officer to complete final assessment considering the Petitioner’s contention as set out earlier and thereafter to pass appropriate orders according to law. If on final assessment it is held that the Petitioner is liable for any difference in duty and or interest, then to invoke the bank guarantee and ITC bond to that extent. Needless to say that the Bank Guarantee and ITC Bond will not be invoked for the period of eight weeks from the date of the communication of the final order of assessment. Needless also to say that the Petitioner has to keep the Bank guarantee alive for the said period. (D.G. KARNIK,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)