Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2017 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 73 - HC - CustomsRejection of refund claim - rule 5 - production of additional evidence - unjust enrichment - Section 130 of the Customs Act,1962 - Whether the adjudicating authority has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted? - Whether the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the authority any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal? - Held that: - certain amount of discretion in the matter of admitting additional evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals) was built into the Rule. The appellate authority is, therefore, required to apply his mind as to whether the plea of the appellant to admit additional evidence falls within the aforementioned four exceptions or not and then admit the additional/fresh evidence. Whereas, the Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded as if there is an absolute bar contained in Rule 5 from entertaining any such additional evidence. Clearly, the approach adopted by the Commissioner of Appeals is erroneous. The anxiety is to confine the authorities concerned strictly to the requirements contained in the statute while making assessments of taxes/duties while at the same time allow the person concerned to press home such plea/material available, which would mitigate his liability. Commissioner of Appeals and also the Tribunal have both grossly erred in not looking into the additional evidence, which has been produced before the Appellate Commissioner - the additional evidence produced before the Commissioner of Appeals is liable to be acted upon, as the exceptions carved out in Rule 5 are satisfied - question answered in favor of appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|