1987 (10) TMI 231 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over exclusion of the cost of glass jars from the assessable value.
2. Appeal against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) setting aside the order-in-original.
3. Application for raising additional grounds of appeal and production of additional evidence.
4. Consideration of the additional evidence and request for remand for fresh adjudication.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the exclusion of the cost of glass jars from the assessable value by a firm claiming that the jars were durable and returnable. The Additional Collector disallowed the claim, leading to an appeal by the firm, which was allowed by the Collector (Appeals) on the grounds that the packing need not be returned to exclude its value. This decision was challenged by the department, leading to the present appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi.

2. During the appeal proceedings, an application was filed by the department to raise additional grounds of appeal and produce additional evidence. The application was allowed, allowing the respondents to move a counter-application to produce rebuttal evidence and cross-examine the wholesalers. The Tribunal found merit in the respondent's application, allowing them to rebut the new case set up by the department through additional evidence and cross-examination of wholesalers.

3. The Tribunal considered the nature of the additional grounds of appeal and the voluminous record of invoices issued to different wholesalers by the respondents. Given the allowance of rebuttal evidence and cross-examination, the Tribunal concluded that a retrial was necessary to ensure justice. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication, considering the additional evidence and providing the respondents with an opportunity to rebut the new case presented by the department.

4. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by remanding the case for fresh adjudication in light of the additional evidence and the need for a retrial to address the issues raised during the appeal proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable and effective opportunity for both parties to present their case and cross-examine witnesses during the fresh adjudication process.