1993 (9) TMI 209

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal memo had also filed a paper book running into 160 pages and 2 additional paper books pertaining to gate passes and RT 12 returns were also filed. The matter had come up for hearing on 3-11-1992 and on that day Shri Lachman Dev, the learned Consultant and Shri B.B. Gujral the learned Advocate had appeared on behalf of the appellants and had addressed arguments on merits partly. During the course of arguments a reference was made by Shri Lachman Dev to certain documents which were incorporated in the paper book and the learned Jt. CDR Shri K.K. Bhatia who had appeared on behalf of the respondent had raised objections that these are in the nature of additional evidence and as such no note of the same should be taken. On the preliminary objection raised by the learned Jt. CDR, Shri Lachman Dev pleaded that he proposes to file an application for grant of permission for admission of additional evidence in terms of Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, to which Shri Bhatia did not object and in the interest of justice, the matter was adjourned. Thereafter, as already pointed out above, a Miscellaneous application duly supported with an affidavit was presented in the Regist....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tions from his clients, copies of the invoices were also attached, and as such he argued that this evidence is not in the nature of additional evidence and the invoices which have been incorporated in the paper book fully support the production register or in conformity with the production register. He fairly stated that since the Collector had seen the original register, the appellants did not feel it necessary to file the photostat copies and as such the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in not filing this evidence in the nature of photocopies before the Collector which now have been incorporated in the paper book filed before the Tribunal. He reiterated that there is no mention of invoices in the order though these were produced before the adjudicating authority for perusal. He pleaded that the production register is very vital for proper disposal of the appeal. He pleaded that each and every entry in the register has to be looked into by the Collector for coming into correct conclusion and as such if this evidence is not admitted the appellants shall suffer an irreparable loss. Shri B.B. Gujral, the learned advocate. Who has also appeared on behalf of the appellants....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f those documents. Shri Singh further pleaded that in the paper book the appellants have incorporated the photocopies of the invoices starting from pagse 50 to 132. There is not a whisper from the Revenue authorities whether invoices were produced or not and as such it cannot be inferred that these records were produced before the adjudicating authorities, and it cannot be presumed that these are the part of the record. Shri Singh stated that in case reliance is to be placed on the additional evidence, the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority for examination in accordance with law. Shri Singh pleaded that in case the Bench pleases to admit the appellants' prayer for grant of permission for admission of additional evidence, he need not address the arguments on merits and the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority. 3. Shri Lachman Dev, in reply, fairly stated that in case the matter is to be remanded to the adjudicating authority, there is no necessity of pressing the arguments on merits. 4. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The application under Rule 23 for grant of permission for admission....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....     * This Tribunal had also occasion to deal in the case of Regal Rubbers v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, Order No. 286/93-A, dated 29-4-1993 [1993 (68) E.L.T. 191 (Tribunal)], the different judgments like Hon. Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of C.I.T. v. Kum. Satya Setia reported in (1983) 143 ITR 486, Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Anaikar Trades and Estates (P) Ltd. v. C.I.T. reported in (1990) 186 ITR 313, Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. M/s. Chengalrayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 551 (Tribunal) = 1989 (22) ECR 21 (CEGAT) and Econtherm Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 382 (Tribunal), and came to a conclusion for allowing the application for grant of permission for admission of additional evidence. After going through the whole matter, we are of the view that ends of justice require that the production register should be looked into by the adjudicating authority with full exhaustive details. We have also perused that the Collector in his order internal page 6 had made a mention of this production register. We feel that this evidence goes to the root o....