TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal allows appeal, remands for fresh adjudication with additional evidence, emphasizing fairness and consideration of all relevant facts.</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY Versus KB. CORPORATION</h3> COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY Versus KB. CORPORATION - 1999 (110) E.L.T. 605 (Tribunal) Issues:- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 31-7-1992 allowing appeal filed by M/s. K.B. Corporation- Additional evidence by Collector for valuation of goods- Opposing introduction of new evidence by respondent- Interpretation of Delhi High Court's judgment in Gunvant v. Collector of Central Excise- Application of Supreme Court's decision in State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal- Consideration of Rule 23 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules- Necessity of additional evidence for proper disposal of the matter- Remand of the matter for de novo adjudicationAnalysis:The Collector of Customs, Bombay filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal allowing the appeal by M/s. K.B. Corporation, setting aside the Order-in-Original and directing the assessable value based on the invoice value for imported goods. The Collector sought to introduce additional evidence regarding markings on the bags of the goods, which was opposed by the respondent. The respondent argued that the Collector lacked authority to introduce new evidence, citing judgments to support the opposition. The Tribunal considered the submissions, referencing the Delhi High Court's judgment and the Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing that additional evidence should not be permitted without sufficient cause. However, Rule 23 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules allows for the production of documents if necessary for justice. The Tribunal found the evidence crucial for decision-making, especially in comparing goods and manufacturers, leading to the allowance of the miscellaneous application.The Tribunal noted that the respondents had not been given an opportunity to respond to the department's case based on the additional evidence. Consequently, the impugned order-in-appeal was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs for fresh adjudication after providing the additional evidence to the respondents and allowing them a fresh hearing. The appeal was allowed on these terms, ensuring fairness and proper consideration of all relevant evidence in the adjudication process.
TaxTMI 