TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise Duty. Investigation following receipt of intelligence showed that during the period 1979 to June, 1984, appellant did not include certain elements of value in the assessable value and thereby evaded payment of duty. Show cause notice dated 27-1-1985 was issued to the appellant alleging that the sum of Rs. 25.00 per unit collected from buyers through dealers during the period April to June, 1984 and the amount representing advertisement and publicity expenses collected from dealers during the entire period should have been included but not included in the assessable value and also alleging suppression of information regarding these aspects with intent to evade payment of duty and alleging contravention of various Rules of the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the dealers who collect the charges from the customers and appropriate the same as compensation. The amount would go to the appellant only when the dealers fail to carry out the inspection. Such inspection is necessary since the Motor Cycles have to be transported from the factory to the dealers premises and may suffer minor damage during transportation and the Motor Cycles are required to be in proper condition at the point of delivery by the dealers to the customers. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the Departmental Representative submitted to us that there is no decision of Courts or the Tribunal taking any view on this aspect under consideration. The matter, therefore, has to be considered on the basis of first pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the entire period being Rs. 17,22,375.85. The notice further indicated that this amount includes the cost of publicity materials supplied to some of the dealers. The appellant contended that the dealers share the cost of joint advertisement campaigns conducted locally as they also benefitted therefrom and the sale of publicity materials to the dealers was a distinct trading activity. The adjudicating authority did not accept these contentions. 6. It is seen that besides the aforesaid amount of about Rs. 17 lakhs, the appellant spent about Rs. 65 lakhs for advertisement. In other words, the appellant spent about Rs. 82 lakhs and recovered about Rs. 17 lakhs from dealers. The advertisement campaign benefitted the dealers as much as it benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
