9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L. Chary, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - M/s. Voltas Ltd., Hyderabad and Revenue both have filed appeals against OIA dated 31-3-2004. 2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Revenue appeal by remanding the matter to the Original Authority. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- 3. M/s. Voltas are the manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso found that the price charged by M/s. Voltas to BPL, LGEIL represented Section 4(1)(a) price and therefore there is no need to go to Section 4(1)(b). Under these circumstances, he dropped the proceedings against M/s. Voltas. Aggrieved with the Order of the Original Authority, Revenue appealed to Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the original authority has not clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcial considerations. He relied on the Order-in-Original 190/98 H-III C.E., dated 7-12-98 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Advocate referred to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Corner Stone Brands Ltd. v. CCE [1996 (86) E.L.T. 257 (T)] wherein it was held that the advertisement expenses incurred by the brand owners are not includable in the assessable value. He said even tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ual interest in the business of each other. 6. The learned JCDR stated that she is not pressing Revenue's appeal against the OIA as now it has been well settled that the Commissioner (Appeals) has power to remand the case. As regards the merits of the case, she pleaded that Original Authority has not properly examined the issue of related persons and the same should be remanded to him. 7.&e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no basis for adding expenses incurred by L.G. Electronics and BPL on advertisements for their own brand. The price charged to the two buyers represent Section 4(1)(a) value. There are no grounds to invoke Section 4(1)(b). Hence in our view the OIO is legal and proper. Under these circumstances we allow the appeal of M/s. Voltas. Revenue appeal is dismissed. (Pronounced in open Court on 8-4- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
