2014 (2) TMI 161 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - Additional evidence adduced - Along with written submissions they have also enclosed product literature in respect of the products - Assessee prayed that these additional documents be taken on record and considered while determining the classification of the goods impugned in these appeals - Held that - only if the Bench considers that additional evidence is necessary for determination of the issue in hand they need to be admitted at all - Tribunal has not asked the appellant to produce any of these documents. As regards the product literature, these are already available on record as part of the expert opinion tendered and is relevant for classification of the products. The affidavit now filed by the employee of the appellant firm or by the buyers of the goods are not at all relevant for determination of the classification issue. However, the product literature, which is already on record and forms part of the expert opinion tendered by the appellant will be given due consideration while determining the classification matter - Miscellaneous application as not maintainable - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Admission of additional evidence under Rule 23 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 in respect of Appeal Nos. E/1508, 1509/11 & E/1760/11.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Admission of additional evidence under Rule 23 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982

The judgment discusses the applications filed under Rule 23 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, regarding the admission of additional evidence in Appeal Nos. E/1508, 1509/11 & E/1760/11. The Tribunal refers to the principles established by the Hon'ble Apex Court and previous cases to determine the admissibility of additional evidence. The judgment cites the case of Shivajirao Nilengekar Patil Vs. Dr.Mahesh Madhav Gosavi - 1987 AIR 294, outlining conditions for admitting additional evidence: the evidence must not have been adduced initially despite best efforts, the affected party should have a chance to rebut, and the evidence must be relevant. The Tribunal also refers to the case of Abdul Gaffar vs. CC- 1993 (63) ELT 465 (Tri.) to emphasize that additional evidence should only be allowed if necessary for determining the issue at hand. The judgment delves into the interpretation of Rule 23 and similar provisions in the CPC, emphasizing that the Appellate Court should only allow additional evidence if essential for pronouncing judgment or for substantial cause. It highlights that the Court's requirement is paramount in deciding the admissibility of evidence. The judgment concludes that the additional evidence sought in the present case, such as product literature and affidavits, is not relevant for determining the classification issue. While existing product literature will be considered, the additional documents are deemed unnecessary. Therefore, the miscellaneous application is rejected as not maintainable.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision regarding the admission of additional evidence under Rule 23 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.