Additional Evidence Cannot Be Rejected Solely For Non-Filing During Adjudication: CESTAT Delhi

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in New Delhi has held that additional evidence may be permitted at the appellate stage if it is necessary to enable the Tribunal to pass orders or for sufficient cause.

It said such evidence cannot be rejected solely because it was not produced during adjudication, recalling its earlier order in a gold seizure dispute.

Relying of Rule 23 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the tribunal observed,

“The parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce any additional evidence, either oral or documentary, before the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal is of opinion that any documents should be produced to enable it to pass orders or for any sufficient cause, the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded, allow such documents to be produced.”

A bench of Judicial Member Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya passed the order while allowing an application filed by Mukesh Kumar Soni, who claimed ownership of 12 gold bars on the basis of a will executed by his late brother, proprietor of B.S. Brothers and Industries, Jaipur.

During the pendency of the appeal, Soni sought to place on record additional documents, including GST returns, tax invoices, party ledgers, and supplier affidavits, to show that the gold had been legitimately purchased by his brother's firm. He stated that these documents were not available during adjudication and were collected later after considerable effort.

The tribunal had earlier rejected this application on August 13, 2025, observing:

“The documents that are sought to be brought on record were not filed during the adjudicating proceedings and no good reason has been stated as to why the same could not be filed at that stage. The application is, accordingly, rejected.”

Following this, the appeal itself was dismissed on December 8, 2025.

Allowing the rectification plea, the Tribunal held that it had failed to apply the correct legal test under Rule 23 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

It observed, “It would be seen that in the order dated August 13, 2025, the Tribunal failed to advert to the principles enunciated in rule 23 of the 1982 (Procedure) Rules, which principles have been enumerated above.”

It then applied those principles to the facts, noting:

“The documents sought to be produced as additional evidence in the application are documents which may enable the Tribunal to pass orders as they relate to gold bars in respect of which penalty was imposed upon the appellant.”

The tribunal also invoked its powers of rectification under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, noting that it can correct mistakes apparent on the face of the record where a party suffers due to an error of the Tribunal.

Holding that its earlier rejection had resulted in such prejudice, the tribunal recalled both the order rejecting the application for additional evidence and the final order in the appeal, and directed that the matter be heard afresh.

It clarified, “It is made clear that the impact of these documents would have to be considered by the Bench while deciding the appeal afresh and it should not be taken that any view has been expressed on these documents in this order.”

The appeal has been listed for a fresh hearing before the regular bench on May 5, 2026.