1989 (1) TMI 285 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Application for production of additional evidence under Rule 23 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 without verification. Dispute regarding inclusion of certain documents in the record. Requirement of affidavit to support the application for additional evidence. Comparison of Rule 23 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 with Rule 27 of the Order XLI of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Admissibility of additional evidence without proper verification and affidavit.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a Miscellaneous Application arising from an appeal, where the Applicants sought permission for the production of additional evidence under Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Advocate for the Applicants reiterated the contentions made in the application but faced a preliminary objection regarding the lack of verification on the application by the Respondent. The Advocate argued that since no rejoinder was filed by the Respondent, the veracity of the application stands. Additionally, the dispute arose over the inclusion of certain documents in the record, with the Applicants claiming they were shown to the Collector on a specific date. However, the lack of supporting affidavit raised concerns about the authenticity of these claims.

The Tribunal examined the application for additional evidence and noted the absence of clarity on which documents were before the lower authorities. The Advocate contended that Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 does not mandate supporting the Miscellaneous Application with an affidavit, drawing a parallel with Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Despite similarities in provisions, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of verification and supporting affidavits to prevent misleading the Court. The lack of proper documentation and attestation of translations raised doubts about the accuracy of the claims made in the application.

Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal highlighted the necessity for appellate Courts to be able to pronounce judgment based on existing materials without considering additional evidence. The failure of the Applicants to provide sufficient evidence and support their contentions with affidavits led the Tribunal to reject the request for admission of additional evidence. The judgment underscored the significance of parties supporting their contentions with necessary documentation to ensure transparency and prevent misleading the Court. The Applicants were advised to submit a new application supported by an affidavit if they intended to introduce additional evidence in the future, emphasizing compliance with legal procedures.