Tribunal Judgment cannot be treated as ‘Additional Evidence’ Under Rule 5 of Customs Appeals: CESTAT [Read Order]
CESTAT held that a Tribunal judgment cannot be treated as “additional evidence” under Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules.
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) held that a judgment of the Tribunal cannot be treated as “additional evidence” under Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, and set aside the remand order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, challenged the Orders-in-Appeal in which the Commissioner (Appeals) had sent the matter back to the original authority for fresh decision. The Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Philips India Ltd., submitted as “additional evidence” by the appellant because it was not available before the adjudicating authority when the original order was passed.
The appellant’s counsel argued before the Tribunal that a court or tribunal judgment cannot be treated as additional evidence. They submitted that Rule 5 deals with oral or documentary evidence and does not include judicial decisions. They also argued that the issue was already decided by the Tribunal in Philips India Ltd., and that decision was later upheld by the Supreme Court.
The revenue supported the remand order and submitted that the original authority did not have the opportunity to consider the Tribunal’s decision, and fresh adjudication was justified.
The two-member bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) observed that Rule 5 regulates production of additional evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals). The tribunal examined the meaning of “document” under the General Clauses Act and “evidence” under the Indian Evidence Act.
It observed that evidence refers to statements and documents produced to prove facts. A judicial pronouncement is a declaration of law and cannot be treated as documentary evidence. The tribunal explained that a decision of the Tribunal or Court does not fall within the scope of “additional evidence” under Rule 5.
The tribunal pointed out that binding judicial precedents must be followed by appellate authorities, and in the absence of any stay, such decisions operate as law. Holding that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in treating the Tribunal’s earlier order as additional evidence and remanding the matter on that basis, the Bench set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
