1988 (3) TMI 203 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Admission of additional grounds of appeal at a later stage of proceedings.

Analysis:
The applicants sought to raise an additional ground of appeal, labeled as ground of appeal No. 18, before the Appellate Tribunal. The advocate for the appellants argued that the ground was not raised earlier due to sufficient cause and referenced a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that objections related to jurisdiction are fundamental. The Departmental Representative objected to the admission of the additional ground, stating that it was not raised before the lower authorities or in the initial memo of appeal. The advocate for the appellants highlighted the inconvenience faced by the applicants in attending the proceedings. The Departmental Representative did not object to the decision on the application due to the applicants coming from outstation.

The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the case's facts and circumstances, allowed the applicants to raise the additional ground of appeal. The Tribunal relied on legal precedents, including a Supreme Court judgment and a decision from the Andhra Pradesh High Court, to support its decision. It was held that new grounds of appeal, especially legal ones related to jurisdiction, can be raised at any stage of the proceedings if supported by sufficient material on record. The Tribunal emphasized that the ground raised by the applicants pertained to jurisdiction and was a legal issue, making it permissible to introduce at this stage. Consequently, the Tribunal granted permission for the additional ground of appeal, which challenged the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector of Central Excise in a specific case under the Customs Act, 1962, to be included as the last ground of appeal in the formal documentation.

This judgment underscores the importance of allowing parties to raise new legal grounds, particularly those concerning jurisdiction, during the appellate process if supported by relevant material. The decision reflects a commitment to ensuring a fair hearing and addressing fundamental legal issues that go to the root of a case, in line with established legal principles and precedents cited by the Tribunal.