Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1194 - CESTAT MUMBAIValuation - inclusion of cost of advertisement incurred by the dealers in assessable value - Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX dated 1.7.2002 and Circular No. 681/72/2002-CX dated 12.12.2002 - HELD THAT:- The learned Commissioner after analyzing the Letter of Intent/dealership agreement came to the conclusion that it does not contain any enforcing provision by which it could be construed that such advertisement cost is includible in the assessable value of the motor vehicles sold to the dealers much earlier in view of the principles laid down by the PHILIPS INDIA LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE [1997 (2) TMI 120 - SUPREME COURT]. On perusal of the Letter of Intent/agreement placed on record by the respondent it is found that a plain reading of the various clauses of the said agreement does not lead to an inference that the same provides an enforceable right to the respondent in relation to advertisement and sales promotion by the dealers. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MYSORE VERSUS M/S TVS MOTORS COMPANY LTD. [2015 (12) TMI 874 - SUPREME COURT] while considering the includibility of pre-delivery inspection charges and after sales service charges interpreting the expression “any amount that buyer is liable to pay to”, “by reason of” or “in connection with the sale” mentioned in the definition of ‘transaction value’, observed that such charges cannot be includible in the transaction value of the goods. Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments to the present issue of includibility of the cost of advertisement and sales promotion activity carried out by the dealers, after sale of the motor cars, this Tribunal in FORD INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-III [2017 (5) TMI 1388 - CESTAT CHENNAI], reached at the conclusion that the cost of the advertisement incurred by the dealers cannot be added to the transaction value - No contrary judgment has been placed by the Revenue. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|