Tribunal grants remand in appeal for exemption denial under Notification Nos. 3/2005-CE & 12/2012-CE, emphasizes fair hearing opportunity.

The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal through remand, providing the appellant a fair opportunity to present their defense regarding the denial of exemption under Notification No. 3/2005-CE and Notification No. 12/2012-CE due to brand name usage. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision, stressing the necessity of a proper hearing opportunity. The Tribunal permitted the submission of additional evidence if required, ensuring due process for the appellant.

---

---

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.

---