1992 (2) TMI 219 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Permission to raise additional grounds and introduce additional evidence in the appeals.
2. Consideration of technical literature and documents as additional evidence.
3. Objections raised by the parties regarding the introduction of additional evidence.
4. Legal arguments presented by the advocates regarding the introduction of evidence.
5. Analysis of the nature of documents sought to be introduced as additional evidence.
6. Application of relevant legal precedents to the case.

The judgment pertains to multiple appeals on the same issue, consolidated for disposal. The Revenue filed a common Misc. application seeking permission to introduce additional grounds and evidence in various appeals. The additional evidence included technical literature related to a compressive shrinkage Range Machine. The Revenue argued that the technical opinion and catalogues of machines were crucial for the case. The department sought to introduce evidence from the Ahmedabad Textile Industry's Research Association and catalogues of comparable machines. The advocates for the parties presented arguments both supporting and objecting to the introduction of additional evidence. The Revenue contended that the additional evidence was technical and legal in nature and would not cause prejudice. The parties objected to the late introduction of evidence and raised concerns about changing the scope of the inquiry. The advocates referenced legal precedents to support their arguments.

The Tribunal considered the nature of the documents sought to be introduced as additional evidence. It was noted that technical literature, such as extracts from textbooks and catalogues, could be considered even at the argument stage. The Tribunal allowed the production of catalogues and technical leaflets related to the machine in question. However, objections were raised regarding the introduction of a leaflet from a Japanese machine and the technical opinion of ATIRA. The Tribunal determined that these documents were in the nature of technical literature and clarification, rather than new evidence prejudicing the assessee. The additional grounds raised by the Revenue were deemed permissible as they pertained to points of law and not new charges.

Legal precedents were cited to support the decision to allow the introduction of additional evidence and grounds. The Tribunal referred to cases where raising new grounds during arguments was permitted if done in good faith. The principles of natural justice were highlighted, emphasizing the need for appellate authorities to consider arguments raised during proceedings. The Tribunal also cited previous judgments to justify the allowance of new grounds relevant to the case. Ultimately, the applications to introduce additional evidence and grounds were allowed, and the cases were listed for final hearing.