TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will be borne by the dealers/distributor. In this fact, the 50% is borne by the dealers/distributors which is the expenses of the dealers/distributors and the appellant is nothing to do with that portion of the 50% - Amount of such advertisement is not flowing to the appellant as an additional consideration. Therefore it cannot be said that the dealers/distributors bearing the advertisement cost to the extent of 50% is part of the assessable value. The relationship between the appellant and the dealers/distributors is on principal to principal basis, therefore only consideration received by the appellant alone will form the transaction value, no further addition should be made. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/36 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice was issued which was culminated into adjudication order dt. 16.1.2008, wherein the Commissioner has confirmed the differential duty demand on account of advertisement expenses borne by dealers/distributors. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed the present appeals. 2. Shri S. Narayanan, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant have discharged the excise duty on the correct transaction value. The 50% advertisement expenses incurred by the dealers/distributors is not the additional consideration to the appellants rather it is an expenses of the dealers/distributors themselves therefore any amount which is spent by the dealers/distributors in connection with the sale and the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50% advertisement cost even though borne by the dealers/distributors, the same is in connection with sales promotion of the goods of the appellant. Therefore sales promotion being a part and partial of the expenses for sale of the excisable goods should be included in the assessable value. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides, we find that for 50% sharing of advertisement expenses appellant have entered into agreement with dealers/distributors. On reading of the contract, it is observed that there is no compulsion on dealers/distributors to perform the advertisement. It is on the discretion of the dealers/distributors that whatever advertisement in respect of the appellants goods is done, 50% of the act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rincipal to principal basis. 5 . It seems to us clear that the advertisement which the dealer was required to make at its own cost benefited in equal degree the appellant and the dealer and that for this reason the cost of such advertisement was borne half and half by the appellant and the dealer. Making a deduction out of the trade discount on this account was, therefore, uncalled for. (b) Besta Cosmetics Ltd.(supra) held that- 3. The appellant has sought to rely upon the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat v. Surat Textile Mills Ltd. - 2004 (5) SCC 201. In that decision the Court appears to have upheld the view that where the advertisement cost is incurred by the manufacturers/customers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pages or the bill board which have been put on the sides of the road. Some of these are reproduced below :-........ 4.2 From these advertisements, it is clear that the advertisements are mainly to the effect that a particular dealer deals in the product of the appellant. Thus, these advertisements cannot be called as advertisements for the manufactured goods but are advertisements of the dealer. Undoubtedly, such advertisement indirectly helps the appellant and it is for this reason that they are reimbursing 50% of the expenses. 5. We also note that the Revenue has demanded the duty on the amount reimbursed by the appellant to the dealers and not the amount spent by the dealer. The amount reimbursed by the dealer is not addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
