Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Versus M/s. Candico India Ltd.

2015 (9) TMI 1209 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Valuation - Held that:- Coca Cola (India) Ltd. was required advertise the product of the respondent along with their own product. It was obligatory on the part of the buyer to advertise the respondent's product in all advertising done by Coca Cola (India) Ltd. on television and press. We also have gone through the show-cause notice and we find that the price offered to Coca Cola (India) Ltd. are in the range 35% to 55% of the normal wholesale price. We also observe that the so called special pac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

larly, respondent has not been able to product any costing data relating to packing so as to justify such lower values. - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Appeal No. E/1019/05-Mum, E/CO/327/05 - Final Order Nos. A/2999-3000/2015-WZB/EB - Dated:- 7-9-2015 - P. K. Jain, Member (J), J. For the Appellant : Shri N N Prabhudesai, Supdt (AR) For the Respondent : None ORDER Per P K Jain The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is a manufacturer of confectionery items. They entered into a contr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

account. It was observed that the price at which the confectionary items were being sold to bottlers of Coca Cola (India) Ltd. / or Coca Cola India Ltd. were in the range of 35% to 55% of the normal wholesale price of similar goods being sold to other wholesale dealers. Revenue therefore was of the view that the normal price of the goods at which these items are being sold to other customers should be taken and accordingly, two demand notices were issued; the first demand notice for August 1998 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o a type of wholesale buyer and since they were buying the goods in huge quantity the value cannot be rejected. The other factor that weighed with the Commissioner (Appeals) packing of goods sold to Coca Cola (India) Ltd. was different and therefore the declared price should be accepted. 2. Ld. AR submitted a copy of the agreement with Coca Cola (India) Ltd. and the respondent to prove that it was obligatory on the part of the buyer to advertise and promote the respondent's product. Ld. AR t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent has not produced any quantity discount schedule to support the contention. In the absence of any quantity discount schedule, the difference in price cannot be considered due to quantity. It was further submitted that so called as different packing will not make any difference in prices. As can be seen from the4 details in the notice that all that was done is that the respondent had asked 24 items to be packed in each polybag as a crate of Thumps-Up contains 24 bottles. Putting 24 items of co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ded for arriving at the assessable value. He particularly emphasised para 17 and 19 of the said judgment to support his contention. Ld. AR further submitted that this Tribunal in the following two case laws has taken the view that advertisement and publicity charges are additional consideration and submitted that in view of the same the value needs to be added. - CCE vs. R. Gac Electrodes P. Ltd. 1988 (33) ELT 485 - Killick Slotted Angles vs. CCE 1988 (35) ELT 647 3. None appeared on behalf of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-fresh" cannot be called a promotion scheme for Mint-o-fresh and is a scheme for promotion in respect of Coca Cola alone. Respondent submitted following case law in support of the contention that the value declared must be accepted. a) Chetan B. Thadani vs. UOI 1987 (30) 287- BOM b) M/s. Brake India Ltd. 1998 (33) ELT 654 c) Standard Electric Appliances 1987 (23) ELT 302 4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the agreement entered between Coca Cola (India) Lt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt and other related issues. ... ... 4. Media: CCI shall advertise the Mint-o-singles pack in all its advertising for the promotion on TV and press." From the above agreement, it is very clear that Coca Cola (India) Ltd. was required advertise the product of the respondent along with their own product. It was obligatory on the part of the buyer to advertise the respondent's product in all advertising done by Coca Cola (India) Ltd. on television and press. We also have gone through the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version