1992 (7) TMI 184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Bench pointed out that the miscellaneous application filed by the respondent is a defective one and is not supported with an affidavit. To this Mrs. Zutshi, the learned Chief Departmental Representative stated that she wants time to rectify the defect. 2. Shri L.P. Asthana, the learned advocate who has appeared on behalf of the respondent/appellant, stated that the application is defective and he does not have any objection for the grant of time to the applicant to rectify the defect, but he does not object for the taking of the application for hearing being not accompanied by an affidavit. To this Mrs. Zutshi, the learned CDR stated that if the learned advocate has got no objection then the miscellaneous application may be taken up ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....into an investigating agency. Shri Asthana, the learned advocate referred to Rule 23 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava reported in AIR 1957 S.C. 912 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that parties to an appeal should not be permitted to adduce additional evidence to fill in the gaps and lacunae. He also referred to another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Econtherm Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 382 (Tribunal) where the criterion for admission of additional evidence has been dealt at length by the Tribunal. Shri Asthana ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uch a controversy which is also not a part of the pleadings before us. Similarly, the department proposes to file as additional evidence copy of a letter from Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. dated 1st September, 1986, well after the commencement of the hearing of this matter before the Tribunal. The obtaining of this letter appears to be in the nature of an investigation taken up while the appeal is being heard by the Tribunal and is, therefore, rejected. The department has also requested to be permitted to file some literature on MAX III equipment. This has not been objected to by the respondents. Being essentially in the nature of a catalogue, although belated, the filing of this literature as additional evidence is admitted." Now by ....