2000 (9) TMI 986 - AT - Central Excise

CEGAT Kolkata Overturns Duty Demand & Penalty on Brand Use

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata set aside the order confirming the demand of duties and penalty on the appellants for using another manufacturer's ... Adjudication - Natural justice Issues:1. Confirmation of demand of duty and penalty based on the use of another manufacturer's brand name and under-valuation of plywood.2. Violation of principles of natural justice regarding cross-examination of witnesses.Analysis:Issue 1:The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata dealt with the confirmation of demand of duty and penalty imposed on the appellants for using another manufacturer's brand name and under-valuation of plywood. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner confirmed the demand of duties based on the allegation that the appellants were using the brand name of a large-scale manufacturer, not entitled to small-scale exemption, and for under-valuation of the plywood being manufactured. The Tribunal referred to a previous order in the appellants' own case where it was held that the markings did not establish a connection in the course of trade with the alleged owner of the trademark. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision, considering the earlier decision and the appellants' request for cross-examination of witnesses.Issue 2:The grievance raised by the appellant, represented by Dr. Samir Chakraborty, was regarding the violation of principles of natural justice concerning the cross-examination of witnesses. The appellants contended that the impugned order was violative of natural justice as the persons whose statements were relied upon were not offered for cross-examination. The Commissioner rejected the request for cross-examination, stating it was a delay tactic. The Tribunal held that the request for cross-examination made by the appellants before the conclusion of the personal hearing should have been considered by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's counsel that the request for cross-examination could not be rejected solely on the ground that it was made at the time of the personal hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need to consider the earlier decision and the request for cross-examination.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata set aside the impugned order confirming the demand of duties and penalty on the appellants for using another manufacturer's brand name and under-valuation of plywood. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of natural justice principles, particularly the right to cross-examination of witnesses, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, taking into account the earlier decision in the appellants' own case and the request for cross-examination.