1991 (12) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ncentrate' for making 100 cases of 24 bottles each of the soft drinks. The buyers of the appellants who purchase the concentrate entered into a separate agreements under which they are allowed to use the trade mark for which the appellants charged Rs. 150/- for 100 cases of 24 bottles each of the soft drinks. The price lists were filed accordingly. A show cause notice dated 30th April, 1987 was issued proposing to include the 'Franchise fee' towards the use of trade mark and good-will in the assessable value of the 'concentrate'. On receipt of the reply the Asstt. Collector added the 'Franchise fee' to the price of the 'Concentrate' and arrived at the assessable value of the 'Concentrate' at Rs. 300/- per unit of 'Concentrate' effective fro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... submitted that the 'Franchise fees' (Goodwill) is directly linked with the manufacture of the 'concentrate'. Therefore, the price realised for the Trade Mark (Goodwill) is relevant for determining the assessable value of the 'Concentrate'. 5. The question, therefore, is whether the 'value of goodwill' i.e. 'Franchise fees' paid for using the 'trade mark' forms part of the assessable value of the 'Concentrate'. 6. The agreement under which the buyers are permitted to use the trade mark is not filed either before the lower authorities or before us. Therefore, no views can be expressed as to whether it is interlinked with the sale of 'concentrate'. There is also no evidence on record to indicate that the 'concentrate' is sold only to those .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wo separate contracts one for the sale of concentrate, another for the use of 'trade mark' under a fixed f price is a device to depress the price of concentrate in order to reduce the assessable value of concentrate. They have not adduced any evidence to show that similar goods in the wholesale market are sold at higher price or merely at equivalent price at which they proposed to assess the 'concentrate'. 10. On the other hand in reply to the show cause notice the appellants submitted that they would have charged the Franchise fee if the buyers have marketed the soft drinks manufactured by them, without purchasing the concentrate. 11. It is true that the judgment in Maruti Udyog arose under the Customs Act, 1962. However, it was observed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X