Additional evidence needs a separate procedural application, while consequential demand quantification merges with the classification dispute.

An appellant seeking to raise a new ground supported by additional evidence must use the prescribed procedural route under Rule 23, because a separate application is required when the opposite party objects and procedural fairness must be preserved; the request cannot be treated as made merely by inserting it in the appeal memorandum. Quantification of demand, however, was treated as consequential to the classification dispute and not as an independent controversy, so no separate appeal was required where the amount flowed from the same classification order. The note states that consequential demand merges with the underlying classification issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appellant can raise an additional ground supported by extra evidence in the memorandum of appeal without filing a separate application under Rule 23. (ii) Whether a separate appeal is required against quantification of demand when the quantification is consequential to the classification dispute.

Issue (i): Whether an appellant can raise an additional ground supported by extra evidence in the memorandum of appeal without filing a separate application under Rule 23.

Analysis: The procedural scheme of the Tribunal rules requires a distinct request when additional evidence or a new ground is sought to be introduced, so that the opposite side has a fair opportunity to meet it. Where the other side objects, the request cannot be treated as effectively made merely because the material is included in the appeal memo. The Tribunal held that Rule 23 contemplates a separate application and that the practice of seeking such relief separately is necessary to preserve procedural fairness.

Conclusion: The objection was upheld, and a separate application under Rule 23 was held necessary.

Issue (ii): Whether a separate appeal is required against quantification of demand when the quantification is consequential to the classification dispute.

Analysis: Quantification was treated as consequential to the classification determination and not as an independent controversy requiring a separate challenge. The demand arose from the classification order itself, and the earlier judicial direction and the stay proceedings showed that the amount demanded was part of the same controversy. On that footing, the quantification merged with the classification issue.

Conclusion: No separate appeal against quantification was required.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal partly accepted the preliminary objections and held that the challenge to additional evidence needed a separate procedural application, while the demand quantification formed part of the same classification dispute and did not require a separate appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A request to adduce additional evidence or raise a new ground must be made through the prescribed procedural route when opposed, whereas consequential quantification arising from a classification order merges with that dispute and does not require a separate appeal.

---