Judgment :- DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J With the consent of Mr. R. Thyagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-caveator, the writ appeal itself which is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 18400 of 1990, dated 31-1-1991 is taken up for final disposal. 2.In the view that we are taking, it is not necessary to advert to the detailed facts of the case. The learned single Judge directed the release of the goods to the respondent in the following terms : "After considering the rival submissions made, I am of the view that the goods in question can be released on the petitioner paying one third of the total amount of eight lakhs of rupees in cash and furnishing bank guarantee for another one third of the total amount and executing a bond for the balance. So far as the differential duty is concerned, the petitioner is directed to pay 1/3rd in cash, furnish bank guarantee for 1/3rd and execute a bond for the balance. So far as the appeal which the petitioner proposes to file, the question of waiver of deposit shall be considered independently of this order by the Appellate Authority. The detention certificate shall be issued on the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. The writ petition is ordered in the above terms." 3.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the interest of the Revenue has not been adequately safeguarded insofar as the direction to execute a bond for the balance amount is concerned. Learned counsel submits that the goods should have been directed to be released only if the respondent paid 50 per cent in cash and 50 per cent in bank guarantee. Learned counsel for the respondent-caveator on the other hand submits that it is very unfair on the part of the appellants to challenge the order of the learned single Judge dated 3-1-1991 after one month, i.e., on 4-2-1991 because by not releasing the goods during that period, the respondent has been put to incur unnecessary demurrage. Learned counsel for the respondent-caveator on the other hand submits that it is very unfair on the part of the appellants to challenge the order of the learned single Judge dated 3-1-1991 after one month, i.e., on 4-2-1991 because by not releasing the goods during that period, the respondent has been put to incur unnecessary demurrage. 4.After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we modify the order of the learned single Judge to the effect that the respondent shall be issued with the detention certificate in accordance with law on the application made by the respondent, and the release of the goods shall be made, on the respondent paying one-third of the total amount of eight lakhs of rupees in cash and on furnishing bank guarantee for the balance of two-thirds of amount. So far as the differential duty is concerned, the respondent shall again pay one-third of the amount in cash and furnish bank guarantee for the balance of two-thirds of the amount. The question of waiver of deposit shall be considered by the appellate authority who shall decide the appeal, as and when filed, uninfluenced by any of the observations of the learned single Judge made in the writ petition. We would also like to observe that the appellants, in case they are aggrieved of orders, should take expeditious steps to question them, as the delay in questioning such orders may result in financial hardship, as has been projected by Mr. R. Thyagarajan appearing for the respondent-caveator, by way of accrual of demurrage. 5.On the respondent complying with the modified conditions for the release of the goods, the appellants shall release the goods to the respondent within twenty four hours from the due compliance, so that no further demurrage is incurred by the respondent. 6.The writ appeal is disposed of and the order of the learned single Judge is modified in the terms indicated above in para 4. No costs.