1993 (9) TMI 209 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Admission of additional evidence in an appeal filed against an order by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur.
2. Whether the production register and invoices presented as additional evidence should be admitted.
3. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to remand the matter for readjudication.

Analysis:

1. The appellants, M/s. Rajasthan Mining & Allied Industries, filed an appeal against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur. They sought admission of additional evidence related to the production register and invoices. The appellants' representative, Shri Lachman Dev, argued that the production register was crucial as it was not properly considered by the Collector in the adjudication order. The appellants claimed that the Collector's observations were not well-founded, and the register details were essential for a correct conclusion. Shri B.B. Gujral, the advocate, cited relevant case laws supporting the admission of additional evidence for the sake of justice.

2. The respondent's representative, Shri B.K. Singh, contended that the appellants were introducing a new case before the Tribunal by presenting additional evidence. He emphasized that certain aspects like excisability of goods, jurisdiction, and limitation were not challenged before the adjudicating authority. Shri Singh cited legal precedents to support his argument that gaps in the case cannot be filled with new evidence without proper examination by the Revenue authorities. He raised concerns about the genuineness and correctness of the presented documents and suggested remanding the matter for further examination if the evidence is admitted.

3. After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the facts, the Appellate Tribunal decided to admit the additional evidence presented by the appellants. The Tribunal noted that the production register was not adequately considered by the Collector in the adjudication order, similar to precedents where additional evidence was allowed for a fair decision. The Tribunal ordered the remand of the matter to the adjudicating authority for a thorough examination of the production register and invoices. The Tribunal stressed the importance of observing principles of natural justice and granting a personal hearing during readjudication. The decision to remand the case was made without any observation on the merits, aiming for a prompt resolution due to the case's age.

This detailed analysis of the issues and the Tribunal's decision provides a comprehensive understanding of the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi.