Ram Lal Contractor Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST (CESTAT Allahabad)
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, dismissed a second-stage appeal challenging an order confirming service tax liability and penalties, primarily on grounds of non-maintainability and lack of supporting evidence. The appellant sought adjournment to produce additional documents allegedly to be obtained from government departments. The Tribunal rejected this request, observing that such documents were not produced during earlier stages of adjudication or first appeal. It held that allowing additional evidence at the second appellate stage would be contrary to established legal principles, which restrict introduction of new evidence unless specific conditions under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied. The Tribunal emphasized that additional evidence cannot be permitted merely to fill gaps or weaknesses in the case and must be justified by due diligence or necessity for pronouncing judgment.
The Tribunal referred to multiple Supreme Court decisions which clarify that appellate courts should not allow fresh evidence unless it is essential for justice and could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence. It reiterated that parties cannot seek to introduce evidence at a later stage at their convenience, and such requests must satisfy strict conditions. Finding no merit in the appellant’s request and noting the relatively low tax impact involved, the Tribunal declined the adjournment.
