Additional evidence under Customs appeal rules must follow due procedure and rebuttal rights before reliance is permitted.

Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 was treated as a substantive safeguard of natural justice because it protects the opposite party's right to examine and rebut additional evidence. The appellate authority had relied on post-order documents without following the prescribed procedure for admitting such evidence or giving the department an opportunity to test it, causing substantial prejudice. The order-in-appeal was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal after due compliance with the procedural requirements.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority could rely on additional evidence without complying with Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, and whether the matter required remand for fresh decision.

Analysis: Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 was treated as a substantive safeguard rooted in natural justice, because it protects the opposite party's right to examine and rebut evidence relied upon against it. The appellate authority had relied on documents that came into existence after the order-in-original without giving the department an opportunity to test them or without following the required procedure for admitting additional evidence. That failure caused substantial prejudice and could not be regarded as a mere technical lapse.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the order-in-appeal was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal after due compliance with the procedural requirements.

---