Additional Evidence in Appeal: Tribunal refused fresh documents offered to build a new case and fill gaps in the record.

Additional evidence in appeal is admissible only when the appellate tribunal itself requires it to pronounce judgment or for some substantial cause under Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 read with Order XLI Rule 27 CPC principles. It cannot be received merely to strengthen a party's case, fill gaps in the record, or make out a fresh case on appeal. The four documents were intended to support a new and stronger case for confiscation, so they were refused and the application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the four documents identified by the Tribunal could be taken on record as additional evidence.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and the principles underlying Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Additional evidence is not admissible as of right and may be admitted only when the Tribunal requires it to enable a decision or for some substantial cause. The evidence cannot be received merely to strengthen a party's case, fill gaps in the record, or build a fresh case in appeal. The documents offered were found to be intended to make out a new and stronger case for confiscation, and admitting them would have required reopening the matter and a de novo exercise.

Conclusion: The four documents were not allowed to be taken on record as additional evidence, and the application was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence in appeal may be admitted only when the appellate authority itself requires it to pronounce judgment or for substantial cause, and not to supplement deficiencies or make out a new case.

---