Additional evidence in appeal is admitted sparingly and cannot be used to fill a lacuna in the original record.

Additional evidence in appellate proceedings under Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 may be admitted only sparingly and for sufficient cause, and the appellate forum should ordinarily remain confined to the record before the lower authority. The Tribunal held that the Department's material was not a continuation of the earlier record, was sought at a late stage, and could have been produced before the adjudicating authority. Its admission would have filled a lacuna rather than met the ends of justice, so the application was rejected and no further evidence was permitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Department's application to place additional evidence on record in the appellate proceedings under Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 should be allowed.

Analysis: The requested evidence was not a continuation of the earlier material and did not relate to the same limited point on which the prior opinion had been obtained. The Tribunal held that an appellate forum should not ordinarily travel beyond the record of the lower authority, and that the exception permitting additional evidence must be exercised sparingly and only where necessary to meet the ends of justice. The material was sought to be introduced at a late stage and the Department had adequate to produce it before the adjudicating authority; allowing it would amount to filling a lacuna.

Conclusion: The application for additional evidence was not admissible and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appellate record remained confined to the material already before the lower authority, and no further evidence was permitted to be introduced by the Department.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence in appeal may be admitted only sparingly and for sufficient cause, and it cannot be allowed to cure a party's omission or fill a lacuna when the material could have been produced before the original authority.

---