9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
2004 (2) TMI 587 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Whether advertisement charges incurred by the buyer are to be included in the assessable value of the product. Analysis: The appeal raised the issue of whether the advertisement charges incurred by the buyer of certain medicines should be added to the assessable value of the products. The Commissioner (Appeals) had ruled in favor of including these charges based on a previous decision involving a different company. The appellant argued that this decision should not apply to their case and cited a Supreme Court decision involving shared advertisement expenses to support their position. The appellant contended that the facts of the previous case were different, as the buyer was engaged in advertisement as part of a cost reduction exercise, shifting the promotion cost to them. They argued that both the appellant and the buyer were incurring sales promotion expenses, and the transaction was on a principal-to-principal basis. This argument was supported by the decision in Philips India Ltd., where shared advertisement costs were not added to the assessable value. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (DR) argued that since the sale was entirely to the buyer, the expenses incurred by the buyer should be considered as benefiting the appellant, thus necessitating their inclusion in the assessable value. However, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, distinguishing the present case from the previous decision. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court decision in Philips India Ltd. to support their conclusion that the advertisement charges incurred by the buyer should not be added to the assessable value. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, allowing the appeal and granting the appellant a refund of the duty portion already deposited. The Tribunal found no justification for including the advertisement charges in the assessable value, based on the distinct circumstances of the case and the applicable legal precedent.
|
