1993 (3) TMI 236 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Additional evidence application under Rule 23 read with Rule 10 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
2. Admissibility of documents filed as additional evidence in Application No. E/158/92-C.
3. Admissibility of affidavits filed as additional evidence in Application No. E/733/92-C.

Analysis:

Additional Evidence Application under Rule 23 read with Rule 10 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982:
The appellants filed two Misc. Applications under Rule 23 read with Rule 10 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The first application, E/158/92-C, sought to file seven documents as additional evidence. The second application, E/733/92-C, aimed to file affidavits obtained from various individuals.

Admissibility of Documents in Application No. E/158/92-C:
In Application No. E/158/92-C, the appellants requested to file seven documents, including letters exchanged with the Excise Department and a copy of the appeal filed before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The Senior Advocate for the appellants argued that these documents were crucial for deciding the case's controversy. The Tribunal found the documents genuine and relevant, as they were part of the Excise Department's records. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the application, emphasizing that the respondents could rebut the documents with their evidence.

Admissibility of Affidavits in Application No. E/733/92-C:
In Application No. E/733/92-C, the appellants sought to file affidavits obtained from individuals, claiming these were crucial to the case. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had only submitted photo copies of the affidavits, not the original documents. The Tribunal highlighted that the affidavits lacked verification by the deponents and were obtained after the impugned orders. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal rejected the application, emphasizing that uncertified photo copies of affidavits could not be equated with evidence on affidavit.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed Application No. E/158/92-C, permitting the filing of seven documents as additional evidence. However, Application No. E/733/92-C was rejected due to the lack of verified original affidavits and their procurement after the impugned orders.