ORDER : 1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties in this appeal which is filed by the appellant herein, being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on 16-1-20021. By the said judgment and order, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court issued a direction to the respondents to adjudicate upon the question of payment of duty on the consignment exported by the appellant and it was further directed that the appellant would keep the bank guarantee renewed till the adjudication is completed and even thereafter for another six months. 2. The appeal was entertained by this Court and an order was passed on 7-10-2002 by this Court wherein a direction was given to the appellant to appear before the adjudicating authority pursuant to the notice issued to it and also to take part in the proceedings in the meanwhile. It was further made clear that no final order would be passed by the adjudicating authority without obtaining leave of this Court. The matter was thereafter again listed before this Court on various dates and on 29-4-2004, this Court issued another direction permitting the adjudicating authority to issue the order. It was however made clear that the said order would not be enforced until further orders from the Court. 3. Thereafter, an application was filed by the respondent Union of India herein seeking a direction for execution of the order passed in the adjudicating proceedings which was taken up for consideration and by an order dated 10-11-2006 the said application which was filed by the respondent Union of India was rejected. 4. With regard to export being made by the appellant, a writ petition was filed in the Bombay High Court being Writ Petition No. 2625 of 1988 wherein an order was passed on 25-8-1988. By the said order, the High Court allowed the appellants to export the goods upon furnishing a bank guarantee to the extent of the full import duty payable on the consignment with a further direction that the guarantee shall have to be of a nationalised bank and that export shall be permitted within 36 hours of the bank guarantee being furnished. 5. Pursuant to the said order and in terms of permission granted by the High Court, export was made after execution of the bank guarantee which is alive till date. 5. Pursuant to the said order and in terms of permission granted by the High Court, export was made after execution of the bank guarantee which is alive till date. The adjudication proceeding, however, was initiated and was continued pursuant to the orders passed by the High Court and by this Court. Although a final order was passed in the said adjudicating proceeding, the same is yet to be enforced. 6. The writ petition was filed in the High Court in the year 1988 when the aforesaid order was passed permitting the appellant to export the goods on furnishing security and since then it appears that no action was taken by the respondent to proceed against the appellant in accordance with law and finally after the order dated 16-1-2002, adjudication proceeding was initiated the continued. 7. In view of the aforesaid position, the counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted before us that the said adjudication proceeding is barred under the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The aforesaid issue which is sought to be raised in this appeal is a relevant issue and the same goes to the root of the adjudication proceeding. The adjudication proceeding has been completed by passing an order but the said order is yet to be enforced as this Court did not permit such enforcement. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since a number of issues are sought to be raised by the appellant herein, we deem it appropriate to allow the appellant to raise all these issues before the adjudicating authority so as to set at rest all issues including the issue on limitation. The said issue has not been considered by the adjudicating authority in the order passed. Consequently, all the contentions that could be raised by the appellant before the adjudicating authority could again be urged which shall be considered afresh by the adjudicating authority and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law giving detailed reasons for its decision. The parties shall appear before the adjudication authority on 14-1-2011 for obtaining date for hearing. 9. In terms of the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of. However, we make it clear that the appellant shall keep the bank guarantee alive till the adjudicating proceeding is completed. The parties shall appear before the adjudication authority on 14-1-2011 for obtaining date for hearing. 9. In terms of the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of. However, we make it clear that the appellant shall keep the bank guarantee alive till the adjudicating proceeding is completed. It is also needless to state that while disposing of this appeal we have expressed no opinion or views either way on the merits of the issues involved or on the adjudicating proceeding.