2016 (11) TMI 679 - HC - Customs

Whether the CESTAT was justified in declining the Department s prayer to be permitted to adduce additional evidence at the stage of the appeal before the CESTAT? - Held that - The Court has been shown a copy of the application filed by the Department before the CESTAT as well as the documents sought to be tendered as additional evidence. It is seen that the said documents were received in the office of the Commissioner of Customs from the DRI on 13th October 2008. Yet, for reasons best known to the Department, the application seeking permission to tender the said documents as additional evidence was not filed before the CESTAT till 26th October 2009 i.e., more than one year after the receiving the said additional evidence from the DRI - the Department has slept over the matter for over a year, the Court is of the view that no interference with the impugned order of the CESTAT is called for. The Court is, therefore, not inclined to examine to the plea of the Department that the additional evidence ought to have been permitted to be tendered or the plea of the Assessee to the contrary on the ground that in the Assessee s appeal the Department could not have been permitted to tender additional evidence - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Customs Department's appeal against CESTAT's order declining permission to adduce additional evidence.
2. Justification of CESTAT's decision in not allowing the Department to submit additional evidence.
3. Delay in filing the application seeking permission to adduce additional evidence.

Analysis:
1. The Customs Department appealed against the CESTAT's order dated 7th January, 2015, which dismissed the Department's Miscellaneous Application filed in an Appeal by the Respondent Assessee. The key issue was whether the CESTAT was correct in refusing the Department's request to introduce additional evidence during the appeal process.

2. The dispute arose from a Show Cause Notice issued to the Assessee regarding the alleged undervaluation of machinery imports. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) confirmed the duty demand, interest, penalty, and ordered confiscation of seized goods. Subsequently, the Department sought to present additional evidence based on information from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Dutch Customs authorities. However, the CESTAT rejected this request citing previous decisions.

3. The High Court noted that the Department received the additional evidence in October 2008 but only filed the application to present it in October 2009, more than a year later. The Court deemed this delay unreasonable and declined to interfere with the CESTAT's decision. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the Department's inaction for over a year precluded any consideration of the additional evidence.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the CESTAT's decision, emphasizing the importance of timely submission of evidence and the consequences of undue delay in legal proceedings. The judgment highlights the significance of procedural diligence and adherence to timelines in presenting arguments and evidence before appellate authorities.