TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (10) TMI 171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant firm were recorded. The goods were seized on 21-2-1990 by DRI. A Show Cause Notice was issued on 7-3-1990 proposing to enhance the value declared on the basis of the information given by M/s. TELCO, dealers for Mercedes Benz and Honda. The appellants filed a reply. The appellants during the personal hearing requested to cross-examine the officer from TELCO who had given the information regarding the price which was not allowed by the Additional Collector. Thereafter, on a consideration of the reply and the arguments advanced during the personal hearing enhanced the value of goods imported, relying on the prices supplied by M/s. TELCO. The importer aggrieved by the Order of the Additional Collector filed the appeal before us. 3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due deligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or that Appellate Court requires a document to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or any other substantial cause. The grounds mentioned above, no doubt, relate to Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. Though the provisions of C.P.C. are not applicable as such, the general principle of law is applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal. The Tribunal can admit additional evidence provided any one of the conditions mentioned above are satisfied. Let us examine the scope of the letters which the appellants seek for admission as additional evidence. The letter dated 12-6-1991 written by Shri Asthana to M/s. TELCO raises five po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n they were not aware about the client of Mr. Asthana namely the appellant. They have further clarified the position about the price list. A reading of the letters makes it clear that by those two letters, the appellant is trying to establish the prices on which the Department relied upon are not comparable prices as the appellants have imported part of obsolete Japanese car whereas the price furnished by the TELCO relate to M/s. Mercedes Benz. In our view the appellant by these letters are creating evidence or trying to destroy or demolish the evidence relied upon by the Collector. In our view, the Appellate Court cannot permit the party to create evidence after the proceedings have already commenced. 5. Therefore, these documents do no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accepting that there was some mixing up of goods. From the facts narrated, it is clear that the correspondence as to mixing up of goods or damage to the goods commenced prior to the proceedings before the Collector that finally resulted in accepting the mixing up by the supplier in 1984 i.e. after the Order of the Collector in appeal. Since correspondence commenced prior to the proceedings, there is justification for admitting the evidence and it is distinguishable on facts from the facts of this case. The next authority relied upon by Shri Asthana is U.P. State Sugar Corpn. v. C.C.E., Meerut (supra). The charge against the appellant in this case is that they had unaccounted excess quantities of molasses which was removed by them in Nov., ....