2014 (12) TMI 406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellants claim for correct determination of transaction value as per the CAS-4 standard and to consider the appellants request for CENVAT credit entitlement on the inputs used for preparation of agarbathi masala. In that case, the submission made to this effect had not been considered and the issue involved was same as the issue involved in this case. 2. The learned counsel fairly agrees that in the present two appeals wherein the appellants are making a request for remand of the matter, the above submissions have not been raised before the original adjudicating authority and therefore he has made these miscellaneous applications under Rule 10 and Rule 23 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982. 3. The learned A.R. vehemently opposes ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n behalf of both sides. The appellants have filed an application for seeking permission for production of additional evidence in terms of Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. According to the appellants the documents which they seek to produce as additional evidence in support of their case were available during proceedings before the Collector but they could not use the said documentary evidence since they were not aware about the basis on which the Collector would be forming his opinion. It is seen that in regard to the filing of additional evidence at the appellate stage, the Tribunal in the case of Prakash Pipes & Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 779 has observed that 'the general principle i....