1989 (3) TMI 211 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of additional evidence.
2. Plea of limitation regarding the demand made in the show cause notice.
3. Application of Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
4. Interpretation and application of relevant case law.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Additional Evidence:
The applicants sought permission to produce 16 documents as additional evidence under Rule 23 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal noted that documents listed at S. Nos. 13, 15, and 16 are extracts from authoritative books, and document listed at S. No. 14 is a copy of a Notification, to which the Department did not object. Therefore, these documents were admitted as additional evidence.

2. Plea of Limitation Regarding the Demand Made in the Show Cause Notice:
The applicants contended that the demand of duty made in the show cause notice dated 7-9-1987 was time-barred, citing several case laws to support their contention. However, the Tribunal observed that the applicants did not raise this plea before the Adjudicating Authority and did not seek permission from the Tribunal to incorporate this new ground in their appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that this plea involves an investigation of facts, and the applicants are essentially trying to introduce a new case or fill gaps in their defense, which is not permissible under the law.

3. Application of Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982:
Rule 23 prohibits parties from producing additional evidence before the Tribunal unless:
- The Tribunal deems it necessary to enable it to pass orders or for any sufficient cause.
- The adjudicating authority or appellate authority decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence.
- The Tribunal considers such evidence necessary to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had sufficient opportunity to produce the documents before the lower authorities but failed to do so. The Tribunal also noted that the applicants admitted having these documents in their possession but did not produce them due to inadvertence, which is not a valid ground for admitting additional evidence at this stage.

4. Interpretation and Application of Relevant Case Law:
The Tribunal referred to several case laws to support its decision:
- State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal, AIR 1957 SC 912: Additional evidence should not be permitted to fill gaps in the case.
- Unique Beautycare Product Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1988 (37) ELT 369: The Tribunal refused to admit additional evidence as the appellants had sufficient opportunity to present it before the lower authority.
- M.P. Shreevaslava v. Veena, AIR 1967 SC 1193: The appellant cannot raise a new case not set out in the Trial Court.
- Indore Municipality v. Niyamapulla, AIR 1971 SC 97: The plea of limitation was not allowed to be raised as it was not taken in the pleadings or trial court.
- Banarsi Das v. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1963 SC 1165: The Appellate Court will not permit a point of limitation to be raised where it involves an investigation of further facts.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicants' plea of limitation involves an investigation of facts and cannot be raised for the first time in the appeal. Therefore, the request to produce additional evidence listed at S. Nos. 1 to 12 was rejected.

Conclusion:
The application was partly allowed. The documents listed at S. Nos. 13 to 16 were admitted as additional evidence, while the request to produce the documents listed at S. Nos. 1 to 12 was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following procedural rules and the necessity of raising all relevant issues at the appropriate stage in the legal process.