TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt judgment in the Bombay Tyre International case ( 1983 (10) TMI 51 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI ) according to which it is only the advertisement and sales promotion expenses incurred for the goods under assessment that can be added to the assessable value. A perusal of the appellants' agreement with the bottlers also shows that the bottler is enjoined to undertake appropriate advertising and sales promotion activities for the beverage which again indicates that the obligation cast on the bottler as per the agreement does not extend to or cover the concentrates manufactured by the appellants. In the circumstances, it is held that the department has failed [to] establish their case for adding the advertisement expenses to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact deriving benefit from the sale of the final product and also that the respondent was in some cases insisting on the bottlers to pay their contribution to SAMS towards the advertisement expenses, issued show case notices to the respondent in respect of clearances of NABB made for the period 1-3-1989 to November, 1993. 3. Both the departmental authorities relied on the decision of this Court in Union of India Ors. etc. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. etc. - 1984 (1) SCR 347 as well as Philips India v. C.C.E. - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 540 to hold that the advertisement costs incurred by SAMS under its agreement with the bottlers was includible in the assessable coats of the NABB for the purposes of Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctured by the appellants. In the circumstances, it is held that the department has failed [to] establish their case for adding the advertisement expenses to the assessable value of concentrates manufactured by the appellants with satisfactory evidence, and, as such, the orders of the lower authorities in this regard are not sustainable. The demand on this count is, therefore, set aside." 6. The department's further appeal to this Court in CA. No. 14618/96 was dismissed on 14-3-1997 [1997 (91) E.L.T. 544]; Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. 7. Larger issues were also sought to be raised by both parties. How ever, having regard to the particular facts, as found hereinbefore, we see no reason to interfere with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
