Adjournment of hearing — Unaware of decision.

[Sunil Shipping Agency v. Commissioner of Customs (ACC &
Exports) Mumbai, 2009 (242) ELT 541 (Trib.-Mumbai)]

An application was moved before the Tribunal for waiver in
relation to the requirement of pre-deposit of the amount ordered to be paid
under the impugned order. The appellant had relied on the decision of Bombay
High Court in Commissioner of Customs (E.P.) v. Jupiter Exports, (2007)
213 ELT 641 (Bom.). The DR also submitted its arguments and relied on various
decisions of High Court and Tribunal.

With reference to the decision relied on by the DR. the
Advocate for the appellant submitted that he was not aware of the said
decision and therefore, time should be granted to him to go through the same
and to make submissions and for that purpose matter should be adjourned.

The Tribunal rejecting the request for adjournment held
that merely because the advocate for a party is unaware of the decisions cited
by the opposite party that cannot be a ground for adjournment of the hearing.
The advocate for the party very well can go through the judgment and make his
submission. Therefore, the question of adjournment of the matter on the said
ground cannot arise. On merits the application were disposed of directing the
appellants firm to deposit the amount.