Additional evidence in excise appeals may be considered where needed; concurrent factual findings on MODVAT credit were not perverse.

The dispute concerned whether any substantial question of law arose on the admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage and on the factual finding regarding deemed MODVAT credit. The appellate authority had accepted the assessee's explanation after considering the material before it, and the Tribunal upheld that factual finding. Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits the appellate authority to entertain additional grounds and make further inquiry where necessary. The cited Supreme Court order was treated as not creating any separate bar on additional evidence. As the finding of no uncounted stock or duty evasion was not shown to be perverse, the revenue challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal raised any substantial question of law, particularly on the admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate stage and the sustainability of the factual finding on deemed MODVAT credit.

Analysis: The appellate authority had accepted the assessee's explanation on facts after considering the material placed before it, and the Tribunal affirmed that finding. Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits the appellate authority to entertain additional grounds and make further inquiry where necessary. The Court also noted that the cited Supreme Court order did not lay down any independent rule barring additional evidence; it only declined interference with concurrent findings. The factual finding that there was no uncounted stock and no evasion of duty was not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the revenue's challenge failed.

---