J.L. Gupta, J. - (1.) ON September 28 , 2001, the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, ordered the recovery of Rs. 2,12,15,180 from the petitioner on account of differential duty. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner presented an appeal on October 12 , 2001. This appeal is still pending. The petitioner has approached the court with the prayer that the operation of the order dated September 28, 2001 be stayed and that the respondents be directed to comply with the circulars dated June 2, 1998 and July 24, 1998, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P.15 and P.16 respectively with the writ petition.
(2.) MR . Vikas Suri, counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents should be restrained from encashing the bank guarantee during the pendency of the appeal. Mr. Rajesh Gumber, learned Counsel appearing for respondents states that the bank guarantee has not been encashed so far. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the bank guarantee secures the interests of the Revenue. In this situation, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction that the Commissioner (Appeals) - -Respondent No. 3 - -shall dispose of the appeal finally in accordance with law, within two months from today. In the meantime, the bank guarantee shall not be encashed in pursuance to the order dated September 28,2001, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P. 10. No costs.;