2017 (11) TMI 1817 - AT - Central Excise

Use of Brand name - N/N. 3/2005-CE dated 14/02/2005 as well as under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - exemption denied on the ground that the appellant has used the brand name and exemption is not for the brand items - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The appellant was never providing an opportunity to put his defence against above evidences - matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue de novo but by providing an opportunity of hearing - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Exemption under Notification No. 3/2005-CE and Notification No. 12/2012-CE denied due to brand name usage
- Lack of opportunity for appellant to present defense against evidence

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 197 dated 20/03/2015 concerning a dispute from January, 2012 to July, 2012. The appellant, engaged in Bio-chemic Systems medicines, sought exemption under Notification No. 3/2005-CE and Notification No. 12/2012-CE. The Department denied the exemption, citing the use of the brand name, which the appellant contended was a house name, not a product or trade name.

2. The Adjudicating Authority noted the removal of the brand name display from the product packaging and the hologram carrying the word "Genuine." The appellant, however, was not given an opportunity to present a defense against this evidence, as highlighted by the Commissioner (Appeals) in para B.3 of the order.

3. During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel expressed readiness to submit evidence to counter the allegations if provided with an opportunity. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a proper opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal also allowed the admission of additional evidence if necessary in accordance with the law.

4. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by way of remand, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their defense. The Court also disposed of COD and cross objections, concluding the judgment with the order dictated and pronounced in open court.