TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rightly contended by the counsel appearing on either side, the CEGAT failed to appreciate the arguments advanced before it by the counsel appearing on either party in its proper perspective. In fact, in Civil Appeal Nos. 13400/1996, 4672/1997 and 4762/1997, the CEGAT failed to appreciate that in several earlier judgments, the CEGAT consistently held that the advertisement expenditure incurred by a manufacturers' customer can be added to the sale price for determining the assessable value, only if the manufacturer has an enforceable legal right against the customer to insist on the incurring of such advertisement expenses by the customer. These matters require reconsideration by the CEGAT in the background of several judgments cited, relied on and referred to in this judgment to arrive at a correct finding on the issues involved. All the appeals are remitted back to the respective Tribunals to consider the matters afresh in the light of the judgments relied on by the parties. Both parties are at liberty to file additional pleadings and, annexures and records, if any, in respect of their respective claim. - 2357-2361 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2004 - S. Rajendra Babu, A.R. Laks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he expenses incurred by the dealers should not form part of the assessable value. The expenses incurred towards advertisement by the owner of the fabrics which Garden Silk Mills Ltd. processed, would in any case, not form part of the assessable value of these goods. The CEGAT also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Ujagar Prints Ors. v. Union of India Ors., 1989 (39) E.L.T. 439 (S.C.) = (1989) 3 SCC 531 wherein this Court laid down that it is the cost of raw material and the cost incurred by the processor towards its processing should form the assessable value of the goods. 6.When the above appeals came up before this Court on 24-2-2003, a Bench of two Judges of this Court while placing the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for directions passed the following order :- Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Govt. of India Ors. v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. Ors. reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) = (1995) 4 SCC 349 which is a judgment of a three Judge Bench, while the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Philips India Ltd. v. Collector of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal : Whether the authorities were justified in including (i) the cost incurred for advertisement of aerated waters in the assessable value of the concentrate required for the manufacture of aerated waters by treating the cost of the advertisement so incurred as the cost of the advertisement of the concentrate; Whether CEGAT was justified in denying the(ii) appellant the benefit of Notification No. 120/75-C.E. when the appellant had opted for the facility contained therein specifically in respect of items falling under the erstwhile. Item 68 of the Central Excises Tariff as in the case of the appellant and invoking instead contrary to the law settled by this Court, the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act for determining the assessable value due to mere suspicion without any proof that the appellant had not made proper declaration of the Invoice value in terms of the Notification no. 120/1975-C.E. ibid. 11.Several other factual and legal contentions were taken challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the CEGAT. In Civil Appeal No. 4672/1997 : 12This appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appreciate that the said advertising expenses were incurred in respect of aerated waters which were a distinct and different manufactured product as compared to the product manufactured by the appellant-Company, i.e. NABB. 15.It was further submitted that the advertisement expenses were not incurred for or on behalf of the appellants or on the appellants' product NABB but in order to advertise the products manufactured by the appellants' customers, the bottlers and for and on their behalf. In Civil Appeal No. 4762/1997 : 16.This appeal is filed by the appellants-Parle International Ltd. against an Order No. 260/1997-A, dated 18-2-1997 of the CEGAT, New Delhi in Appeal No. E-1020/90-A. Here again, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of non-alcoholic Beverage Bases (NABBs) which is sold by the appellants to bottlers who are Franchise holders. This case stands on identical footings as that of Civil Appeal No. 4672/1997. In the present appeal, this Court on 9-2-1998 [2001 (131) E.L.T. A149 (S.C.)] passed an interim order which reads as under : In view of the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, dated 18-2-1997, the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Philips India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune [1997 (91) E.L.T. 540 (S.C.) = (1997) 6 SCC 31] 3. M/s. Ujagar Prints and Others (III) v. Union of India and Others [1989 (39) E.L.T. 439 (S.C.) = (1989) 3 SCC 531] 4. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh [2003 (158) E.L.T. 552 (S.C.) = 2003 (111) ECR 776 (SC) = JT 2003 (9) SC 585 5. Union of India and Others v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. and Others [1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.) = (1984) 1 SCC 467] 6. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Others v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. etc. [1987 (27) E.L.T. 553 (S.C.) = 1986 (Supp) SCC 751] 7. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Others v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. [1989 (41) E.L.T. 703 (S.C.) = (1989) 3 SCC 238] 8. Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. T.I. Millers Ltd., Madras and T.I. Diamond Chain, Madras [1988 (35) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.) = 1988 (Supp) SCC 361] 9. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. M/s. Jayant Oil Mills Pvt Ltd. [1989 (40) E.L.T. 287 (S.C.) = (1989) 3 SCC 343] 10. Cosmic Dye Chemical v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1995 (75) E.L.T. 721 (SC) 11. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
