2011 (3) TMI 406 - AT - Central Excise

Application seeking leave to produce additional evidence - It being settled law that in the absence of sufficient cause for non-production of the evidence before the lower authority and in absence of justification for production of additional evidence at the appellate stage, no party is entitled to produce additional evidence at the appellate stage and considering that the application filed by the party neither discloses sufficient cause for non-production of the additional evidence before the Commissioner nor justification for production of such evidence at the appellate stage - Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues: Application for leave to produce additional evidence before the Tribunal in an appeal.

The judgment pertains to an application seeking permission to introduce additional evidence before the Tribunal in an appeal against an order issued by the Commissioner, New Delhi. The appellants argued that the documents they intended to present were received shortly before the Commissioner's decision, preventing their submission at that stage. The documents in question included a certificate from a Chartered Engineer and another from the Sales Director of a foreign company. The Chartered Engineer's certificate was dated after the impugned order, and the Sales Director's certificate was dated before the order. The appellants did not provide a valid reason for their failure to obtain these documents during the Commissioner's proceedings. The Tribunal considered Rule 23 of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which permits additional evidence only with sufficient cause for not presenting it earlier. The judgment highlighted that the party must justify why the evidence was not produced before the lower authority or provide a valid reason for its introduction at the appellate stage.

Regarding the Chartered Engineer's certificate, the Tribunal noted that the same individual had previously issued a certificate for the appellants during the proceedings before the Commissioner. The appellants did not offer a compelling reason for seeking another certificate from the same person at the appellate stage. The judgment emphasized that presenting additional evidence at the appellate stage is not an automatic right and must be supported by sufficient cause or justification. It reiterated that parties cannot introduce new evidence without valid reasons, especially if the evidence could have been presented earlier. Since the appellants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not submitting the documents before the Commissioner or a valid justification for their introduction at the appellate stage, the Tribunal dismissed the application for leave to produce additional evidence.