TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the expert opinion tendered and is relevant for classification of the products. The affidavit now filed by the employee of the appellant firm or by the buyers of the goods are not at all relevant for determination of the classification issue. However, the product literature, which is already on record and forms part of the expert opinion tendered by the appellant will be given due consideration while determining the classification matter - Miscellaneous application as not maintainable - Decided against assessee. - E/1509, 1508 & 1760/11 - Misc. Order Nos. M/2474-2476/2013-WZB/C-II(EB) - Dated:- 2-12-2013 - P R Chandrasekharan And Anil Choudhary, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Jitu Motwani, Adv. For the Respondent : Dr B S Meena, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itional evidence could not have been adduced at the first instance. ii) The party affected by the additional evidence should have a reasonable opportunity to rebut the additional evidence. iii) The appellate authority should be satisfied that these additional evidences are relevant for determination of the issue. Further, this Tribunal in the case of Abdul Gaffar vs. CC- 1993 (63) ELT 465 (Tri.) considered this issue at length and held as follows: 17. From the facts, as narrated above, it is clear that it is not the case of the respondent for seeking the permission to produce the additional evidence that no opportunity was given to the respondent to adduce the said evidence, nor it was argued before us by the learned SDR. E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unce, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 18. Interpreting sub-rule (b), the Calcutta High Court In the goods of Premchand (1894) 21 Cal. 484,486 observed that the admissibility of additional evidence is made to depend, not upon the relevancy or materiality to the issue before the Court of the evidence sought to be admitted, or upon the fact whether or not the applicants had an opportunity of adducing evidence at some earlier stage, but upon whether or not the Appellate Court requires the evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause . From this observation, it is clear that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e expression or for any substantial cause appeared in sub-rule (b) (which is identical to our Rule 23) it was held by the Privy Council in the case of Parsotim v. Lal Mohan, AIR 1931 Privy Council 143, that these words refer to the requirement of the Court. In the case of Sunder Lal Sons v. Bharat Handicrafts (Pvt.) Ltd., AIR 1968 SC 406, it was held that the fact that those in charge of the case in the Lower Court did not realise the importance of the documents which was in their possession, does not amount to other substantial cause . In the case of Venku Reddi v. Pinchi Reddi, AIR 1956 AP 250, it was held that sub-rule (b) of Rule 27 of Order 41, C.P.C., governs cases where the Court thinks that certain documents are necessary to en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Rajkumar Munnalal and Others, supra, held that the need to admit additional evidence on ground of any other substantial cause as well must be that of the Court and the evidence sought to be produced must be conclusive in character and free from suspicion. 3. The above conclusion was drawn by this Tribunal in the light of the various decisions of the hon'ble Apex Court and various Hon'ble High Courts of the country. What is emerging out of these decisions is that only if the Bench considers that additional evidence is necessary for determination of the issue in hand they need to be admitted at all. In the present case this Tribunal has not asked the appellant to produce any of these documents. As regards the product literature, these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
