2010 (5) TMI 368 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant submits that the letter dated 17th November, 2003 explaining the methodology of working of the appellant - Department shows that such a letter is not in the office records - Held that - document dated 17th November, 2003 is not additional evidence going to the root of the matter - order accordingly and proceed for hearing of the stay application

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of a letter dated 17th November, 2003 submitted by the appellant to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division Kota.
2. Objection raised by the revenue regarding the acknowledgment of the letter by the Department.
3. Verification of the authenticity of the letter and its submission during the proceedings.
4. Determination of the impact of the letter on the case and its admissibility as additional evidence.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application citing a letter dated 17th November, 2003, submitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division Kota, as crucial evidence. The letter detailed the methodology of the appellant's work, and the appellant emphasized its significance in the proceedings.
2. The revenue objected to the letter's authenticity, presenting a communication stating the Department's practice of acknowledging received letters. The communication highlighted discrepancies in the letter's receipt, indicating it may not have reached the Assistant Commissioner's office.
3. Despite the appellant's claim of inadvertent omission in submitting the letter during proceedings before the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise, the Tribunal investigated the date of adjudication, which was 14th May, 2009. The Tribunal noted the absence of any defense plea based on the letter at any stage of the proceedings or in response to the Show Cause Notice.
4. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the letter dated 17th November, 2003 did not constitute additional evidence crucial to the case. The Tribunal dismissed the application, ruling that the document did not significantly impact the matter at hand. The Tribunal proceeded with the hearing of the stay application, granting the appellant time to submit certain documents by a specified date.