9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to file a synopsis of their submissions by 25/10/2013. The respondent Revenue submitted the synopsis of the submission but the appellant sought time till 01/11/2013. On 31/10/2013 the appellant filed their written submission. Along with said written submissions they have also enclosed product literature in respect of the products, whose classification is disputed, and an affidavit dated 31/10/2013 of Shri. M. Kulkarni, Head, Factory automation and certain certificates said to have been obtained from their customers in respect of the products. It is prayed that these additional documents be taken on record and considered while determining the classification of the goods impugned in these appeals. 2. The applications have been filed under Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b) for any other sufficient cause. The general principle is that the Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the Lower Court and the said Rule 23 is an exception to the said general rule, as stated above. In other words, the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of additional evidence and it is for the Court to decide as to whether the additional evidence sought to be produced is required to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any substantial cause. At this stage, it would be advantageous to reproduce sub-rule (b) of Rule 27 of Order 41, C.P.C., since it was relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants stressing that Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, as extracted above, also employs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed or not. The word "requires" means nothing more than "needs" or "finds needful" (See : Kessowji Issur v. G.I.P Railway (1907) 31 Bombay 381 and Ganesh v. Ramadeni, AIR 1953 AP 316). In the case of Bombay Corporation v. Lala Pancham. AIR 1965 SC 1008, the Apex Court held that under this Rule the requirement of the Appellate Court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision does not entitle the Appellate Court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence, it can pronounce judgment in a case. It does not entitle the Appellate Court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed to be taken on the record, but that is not the same thing as saying that they are essential to enable a Court to reach a decision and further that the Appellate Court will not ordinarily admit the documents which will necessitate the remand of the case to the trial Court for re-hearing and re-opening of the suit. In the case of Smt. Ashalata Mitter v. Amiya Kumar Dey, AIR 1958 Cal 71, it was held that additional evidence, if allowed to be taken on record would lead to a formal proof of the documents themselves and an opportunity would have to be taken to the other side to adduce evidence in rebuttal then additional evidence should not be admitted at appellate stage. It has been held time and again by the Apex Court that such power shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
