2005 (5) TMI 434

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....additional evidence to be filed before the Tribunal. The miscellaneous application as well as the appeal are taken up for disposal. 3. Briefly the facts are that the respondent imported a motor car (LEXUS) and sought its clearance through ICD at Pune. The declared CIF value is Rs. 9,68,000/-. The car is fitted with various accessories described in the impugned order. The importer tendered a certificate, issued by an authorised dealer in Lexus Toyota in London, dated 5-11-1998 indicating that the FOB value of a new car of the same model is British Pounds GBP 22,555 which includes the value of the said accessories. The said certificate gave the chassis number which tallied with the car sought to be cleared. The Commissioner found that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ngth the importer's mala fides. All this additional evidence only indicates how the value is misdeclared. But we observe that the additional evidence was not available to the Commissioner at the time of adjudication. The Commissioner's order cannot be set aside on the basis of evidence which was not available before him. The legality and propriety of the order can be judged only on the basis of evidence before him. Further the Tribunal in the case of Sri Ranga Industries v. Commissioner [1994 (72) E.L.T. 638 (T)] later upheld by the Supreme Court [1997 (95) E.L.T. A227 (S.C.)] held that documents which are not part of the record before the lower adjudicating authority in adjudication process and which are not required to enable the Tribunal....