Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether additional evidence in the form of an affidavit of an Assistant Collector could be admitted at the appellate stage.
Analysis: Rule 23 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 governs reception of additional evidence, and the relevant test is whether there is sufficient cause or necessity for the appellate forum itself to require the evidence for doing justice. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act recognises expert opinion, but the present affidavit was not shown to be necessary to enable a just decision. The matter had already been examined at length before the adjudicating authority, expert evidence had been considered earlier, and the application appeared to be an to fill gaps and lacunae in the case rather than to place truly necessary evidence on record.
Conclusion: The additional evidence was not admitted and the application was rejected.
Final Conclusion: Additional evidence cannot be introduced at the appellate stage merely to repair deficiencies in the case already presented when no sufficient cause for its earlier non-production is shown.
Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence at the appellate stage is not permissible to fill lacunae or gaps in a party's case unless its reception is necessary for doing justice and sufficient cause for earlier non-production is established.