2015 (12) TMI 944 - AT - Central Excise

Request for admission of additional evidence - Held that - all the documents which the appellant wants to include as additional evidences were submitted by the department before the Court; there are mahazars, investigation report and the deposition made before the Commissioner. We also find that the appellant did not bring out any document or private document as new evidence. The mahazar drawn dt. 23.8.96 at the time of seizure during the investigation itself and also deposition of the investigating officer in Revenue case is legal documents. As regards Revenue s contention that Tribunal in their order dt. 29.8.2007 has already rejected the application of additional evidence, we find that Hon ble Supreme Court has set aside the Tribunal s order and remanded the matter to Tribunal. - appellants agitating this aspect before the High Court on the additional grounds also needs to be considered. Therefore Revenue contention is not justified. We also feel that these additional evidences being only documents submitted by Revenue, therefore considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into consideration the Hon ble Supreme Court s order (2010 (11) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and the High Court order 2015 (2) TMI 232 - MADRAS HIGH COURT we allow both the MISC applications. - Appeal disposed of.

Issues:
1. Consideration of additional documentary evidence in appeals.
2. Relevance of documentary evidence submitted by the appellant.
3. Tribunal's previous rejection of additional evidence.
4. Jurisdictional issues and procedural matters.
5. Interpretation of High Court and Supreme Court orders.
6. Admissibility of evidence in taxation matters.
7. Finality of previous orders and remand by higher courts.
8. Arguments for and against admitting additional evidence.
9. Decision on allowing the additional evidence and fixing appeal hearing date.

Analysis:

1. The Appellate Tribunal considered two miscellaneous applications filed by the Appellant seeking to introduce additional documentary evidence in their appeals. The Bench directed the appellants to submit translated versions of the evidences in English for review.

2. The appellant submitted seven documentary evidences, including complaints, deposition reports, inspection reports, and court judgments. These documents were crucial for the appeal, as they were related to the issue of exemption under a specific notification and the imposition of penalties.

3. The Tribunal had previously rejected the appellant's request for additional evidence. However, the Honorable High Court's order directed the Tribunal to reconsider the issue in light of the new evidence presented by the appellant.

4. The arguments presented by both parties focused on the relevance and admissibility of the additional evidence. The appellant emphasized the importance of the evidences in establishing their case, while the respondent opposed the submission, citing procedural and jurisdictional issues.

5. The High Court's order highlighted the need for the Tribunal to re-examine the issues raised by the appellant, especially regarding confiscation and procedural irregularities. The Supreme Court's remand further supported the consideration of additional evidence by the Tribunal.

6. The debate also touched upon the distinction between criminal proceedings and taxation matters, emphasizing the level of proof required in each context. The appellant argued that the evidence provided by the department before the Court should be admitted in the interest of justice.

7. The discussion referenced previous Tribunal orders and case laws to support the arguments made by both parties. The finality of previous orders and the impact of remand by higher courts on the admissibility of additional evidence were crucial points of contention.

8. After careful consideration of all submissions and legal precedents, the Tribunal decided to allow the admission of the additional evidence. The decision was based on the nature of the documents submitted by the Revenue and the directions given by the higher courts for a fresh examination of the case.

9. Consequently, the Tribunal fixed the date for the appeal hearing, taking into account the directions from the Supreme Court and the High Court for a comprehensive review of the issues involved in the case.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key aspects of the judgment, including the considerations for admitting additional evidence, the impact of higher court orders, and the final decision reached by the Appellate Tribunal.

← Previous Next →