Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.31 seconds)
N. Ranga Rao & Sons vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 6 May, 2014 cites

M/S Mehta Stone Export House vs Cce, Jaipur-I on 4 March, 2008

3. The learned A.R. vehemently opposes the request for remand. He submits that the present appeals cannot be considered at par with the appeal which was considered by the Tribunal and remanded. This is because unlike the earlier case, in this case, no submissions were made regarding CAS-4 and CENVAT credit. He relies on the decision in the case of Kneader House Vs CCE Delhi [2013(290)ELT 249 Tri-Del)] to submit that additional evidence cannot be allowed.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Prakash Pipes And Industries Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 23 August, 1993

5. We have examined the records of the case and? considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. The appellants have filed an application for seeking permission for production of additional evidence in terms of Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. According to the appellants the documents which they seek to produce as additional evidence in support of their case were available during proceedings before the Collector but they could not use the said documentary evidence since they were not aware about the basis on which the Collector would be forming his opinion. It is seen that in regard to the filing of additional evidence at the appellate stage, the Tribunal in the case of Prakash Pipes & Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 779 has observed that the general principle is that the Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in the appeal. Rule 23 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules is an exception and that exception should be exercised sparely and judiciously.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1