Additional evidence on appeal is limited: new factual pleas cannot be raised, but authoritative documents may be received.

Additional evidence in appeal is not admitted as a matter of course under Rule 23 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules, 1982; it may be received only for sufficient cause, where necessary for disposal of the appeal, or where a party lacked adequate opportunity below. A limitation plea not raised before the adjudicating authority could not be supported by new documents because it would require fresh factual inquiry and amounted to filling gaps in the case. By contrast, extracts from reference books and a notification were admitted where no objection was raised and no bar to receipt was found.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicants were entitled to produce documents at Sl. Nos. 1 to 12 as additional evidence to support a limitation plea not raised before the adjudicating authority; (ii) Whether the documents at Sl. Nos. 13 to 16 could be taken on record as additional evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the applicants were entitled to produce documents at Sl. Nos. 1 to 12 as additional evidence to support a limitation plea not raised before the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: Rule 23 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 prohibits additional evidence as a matter of course and permits it only when the Tribunal requires it to enable disposal of the appeal, for sufficient cause, or where the party was denied adequate opportunity below. The limitation plea sought to be supported by these documents had not been raised before the adjudicating authority and would require investigation of facts. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that a new plea cannot ordinarily be raised for the first time in appeal, particularly where it depends on further factual inquiry, and that additional evidence cannot be admitted merely to fill gaps in a party's case.

Conclusion: The request to produce the documents at Sl. Nos. 1 to 12 was rejected and those documents were not admitted.

Issue (ii): Whether the documents at Sl. Nos. 13 to 16 could be taken on record as additional evidence.

Analysis: The materials at Sl. Nos. 13, 15 and 16 were extracts from authoritative reference books and Sl. No. 14 was a copy of a notification. No objection was raised to their production, and the Tribunal found no impediment to receiving them as additional evidence.

Conclusion: The documents at Sl. Nos. 13 to 16 were admitted and taken on record.

Final Conclusion: The application was allowed only to the limited extent of admitting the documentary materials at Sl. Nos. 13 to 16, while the remaining request for additional evidence was refused.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence in appeal may be admitted only for sufficient cause or where necessary for just disposal, and it cannot be used to raise a new factual plea for the first time or to fill lacunae in a party's case.

---