1999 (12) TMI 793 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Re-classification of medicaments for export, mis-carriage of principles of natural justice, validity of trade mark registration, compliance with pre-deposit orders, remand of the matter for de novo consideration.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai involved a case where the issue of re-classification of medicaments for export was central. The learned Consultant for the appellants argued that the impugned orders re-classified the products, not agreeing to the claim for classification under sub-heading 3003.10 as P or P medicaments but instead classifying them as general medicaments under sub-heading 3003.20. The appellants contended that they had a strong case as they used a recognized brand name with a logo, indicating proprietorship of their products. They argued that the Orders-in-Appeal were passed ex parte without granting a hearing, leading to a mis-carriage of the principles of natural justice. On this basis, they requested setting aside the Orders-in-Appeal and remanding the matter.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had not provided a personal hearing while passing the interim stay orders, contrary to the requirements of Section 35A(1) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the reliance on a previous decision was misplaced as it was in a different statutory context. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of granting a hearing as per the statute and concluded that the Orders-in-Appeal were passed without proper consideration of the merits due to the absence of a hearing.

Regarding the validity of the trade mark registration, the Tribunal acknowledged the unique monograms and alphabet characters used by the appellants, establishing a connection with their manufacturing activities. Even though the trade mark registration was pending, the Tribunal held that the lower authorities' orders were erroneous as the Central Excise Notification did not mandate such registration. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellants to make specific pre-deposits within a specified timeframe.

In response to the compliance with pre-deposit orders, the Tribunal directed the appellants to report compliance to the Commissioner (Appeals) within the stipulated time. Additionally, the Tribunal granted the appellants' request for remand of the matter to the first appellate authority for a de novo consideration on merits, emphasizing that the merits had not been adequately evaluated in the initial orders. The Tribunal instructed the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the case after hearing the appellants without requiring further pre-deposits.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of re-classification of medicaments, adherence to principles of natural justice, validity of trade mark registration, compliance with pre-deposit orders, and the remand of the matter for a fresh consideration on merits, ensuring a fair and thorough review of the case.