1989 (8) TMI 179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....teel ingots falling under sub-item 6(ii) of the then Tariff Item 25 of the Central Excise Tariff out of the iron scrap. They were also manufacturing steel ingots alleged to have been manufactured out of inputs i.e. steel ingots falling under sub-item 6(ii); Runners and Risers of sub-item 6(iii) and Blooms, billets, slabs and sheet bars of sub-item 7(ii), pieces roughly shaped by rolling or forging of iron and steel of sub-item 8, bar and rods, (excluding flats) of sub-item 9(ii) and angles, shapes and sections falling under sub-item 11 of T.I.25. On the steel ingots manufactured out of iron scrap the party was paying duty @ Rs. 200/- per M.T. as per classification list w.e.f. 10-7-1984 and @ Rs. 315/- per M.T. vide classification list w.e.f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ials falling under sub-item 6(ii) and (iii), 7(ii), 8, 9(ii) and 11 of the then Tariff Item No. 25 and no charge was made with regard to steel ingots manufactured out of iron scrap, flat cuttings, flat end cuttings and scarp (other than iron scrap). It is the case of the appellants in this Misc. application that they have seized records, vouchers, invoices which reveal the respondent, having purchased these inputs from various parties. The Department is seeking permission to produce these additional documents to substantiate and make out a case againt the-respondents for recovery of duty, of which, admittedly no reference was made in the show cause notice dated 1-8-1985. The Revenue has now produced zerox copies of fifty documents and seeks....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the charges and to permit them to allow the additional evidence is to fill in lacunae or bridge the gaps which were left out at the initial stage. 6. Shri K.D. Tayal, Sr. Departmental Representative argued the case for the appellants and sought for allowing the Misc. application and permit the Department to allow the additional documents/evidence. He urged the grounds made out in the application and submitted that the documents were contemporaneous in nature. He relied upon the following rulings 1. Collector of Central Excise v. Chengalrayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. [1989 (39) E.L.T. 551 (Tribunal) 2. A.K. Industries v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1989 (40) E.L.T. 65 (Tribunal)] 3. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....It is well established that additional evidence shall not be allowed to fill up lacunae. Sufficient opportunity was available for State to produce - not utilised - hence should not be allowed 1. State of U.P. v. Man bodhan Lal Srivastava [AIR 1957 SC 922] 2. Natha Singh & Others v. The Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab & Others [AIR 1976 SC 1053] Production of documents at second appellate stage should not be allowed. 3. Soonda Ram & Another v. Rameswaralal &Another [AIR 1975 SC 479 para 4] 4. Shivajirao Nilangakar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi & Others [AIR 1987 SC 294] 5. Mohinder Singh Gill & Another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Others [AIR 1978 SC 851]." 8. The question that arises for ....