SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise for final hearing. Shri Arun Natarajan, Advocate, who says he is Junior to the Counsel for the appellants in Appeal Nos. 116, 118 and 119/2002, submits that his Senior is preoccupied with election work and hence unable to attend to hearing of these cases. He wants the matter to be adjourned to a date after 10 -5 -2004. However, there is no application from the appellants concerned for adjournment, nor one from their Counsel. Counsel for all the other appellants are present, and so is Sr. Counsel Shri M. Chandrasekaran for the Revenue. All of them have come prepared for arguments.

(2.) The prayer for adjournment made by Shri Arun Natarajan has made us look into the past record of proceedings of these appeals. We find that the Counsel for appellants had consistently insisted on these appeals being heard early. When the Revenue sought adjournment, Counsel for the appellants/opposed it. The stake involved in these cases is very high. The amounts of duty involved are of the order of several crores. Apparently it was at the insistence of the appellants' Counsel for immediate hearing of the appeals that the Bench granted waiver of pre -deposit and posted the appeals to a specific date for hearing. A jurisdictional issue was also raised by the Counsel and a decision thereon was rendered by the Bench. Our order on that issue was challenged before the High Court in a Writ Petition by one of the present appellants. It is submitted today by learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue that, though the writ petition was admitted by the Hon'ble High Court, stay of operation of our order was declined as per the High Court's order dated 30 -9 -2003. The position, therefore, is that we can proceed with final hearing of these appeals.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid position, we do not think that the present prayer for adjournment is liable to be granted unconditionally. Any adjournment of hearing of these appeals means undue advantage to the appellants and prejudice to the Revenue inasmuch as the appellants would continue to enjoy the benefit of our order of waiver of pre -deposit and stay of recovery. Nevertheless, the above prayer for adjournment on the ground of Counsel's inconvenience has got to be considered without prejudice to the respondent. Having regard to the respondent -Revenue's interest, which we are bound to consider under Section 129E of the Customs Act, we grant adjournment on the condition that an amount of Rs. 1.00 crore (Rupees one crore only) towards the demand of duty of Rs. 18.24 crores against M/s. ETK Softech (P) Ltd. be deposited by them as also an amount of Rs. 1.00 crore (Rupees one crore only) towards the penalty of Rs. 25 crores imposed on Shri N.M. Parthasarathy be deposited by him, both within one month from today. Accordingly, the appeals are adjourned to 5th July, 2004,