Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2015 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 874 - SUPREME COURTValuation of goods - Whether the pre-delivery inspection charges and after sales service charges are to be included in the assessable value - Held that:- The assessee/manufacturer had agreed to share half of the advertisement expenses since advertisement benefited both the manufacturer as well as the dealer. The assessee/appellant had claimed deductions of the aforesaid expenditure which was held by the Adjudicating Authority as inadmissible. The decision was upheld in appeal before the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal. However, this Court reversed the view of the lower authorities holding that the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction from price realised from dealers on the aforesaid account after taking note of the relevant clauses of the Agreement between the parties from which it was found that the agreements were genuine entered into on arms length basis and were between principle to principle under which payments were in fact made. - where the manufacturer has sold his goods to his dealer and wholesale dealer thereafter does ASS to the customer and incurs expenditure therefore, it cannot be added back to the sale price charged by the manufacturer from the dealer for computing the assessable value. This is more so, where the ASS is done by the dealer many weeks after the goods have been sold to him by the manufacturer. Such a post-sale activity undertaken by the dealer is not relevant for the purpose of excise since the goods have already been marketed to the dealer. PDI charges and free ASS charges would not be included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Act for the purposes of paying excise duty. The view taken by the Tribunal in favour of assessees in this behalf is correct in law and all the appeals of the Department, are dismissed. On the other hand, Larger Bench view in Maruti Suzuki [2010 (8) TMI 49 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] does not lay down the law correctly and is, therefore, overruled - Decided in favour of Assessee.
|