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

....adjudication with a direction to consider 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 198....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the case and considered the submissions made on 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.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... may not be any appeal at all against that order and we would be having two orders on the same issue and for different periods, the same issue would have received different treatments. Where it cannot be avoided, we cannot help. In this case, the matter has already been remanded for the subsequent period and in our opinion, in the interest of justice and to ensure uniform treatment of the issues for all the different periods, it would be appropriate to remand the matter. It would also reduce the number of orders required to be passed. The learned counsel submitted that the personal hearing fixed had been postponed to 23/05/2014 at the request of the learned counsel, accepting the submission of the counsel that this Tribunal would accept his....