1998 (12) TMI 390 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of soft drink concentrates under Central Excise Tariff Act, inclusion of royalty charges and advertisement costs in assessable value.

Classification of Soft Drink Concentrates:
The appellants are involved in the manufacture of soft drink concentrates, initially classified under Chapter Heading 33.02 and later under Chapter 21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. They sell the concentrates to bottlers under a Franchise agreement allowing the bottlers to produce soft drinks under the brand name "Lehar." The dispute arose when the appellants did not include royalty charges and advertisement costs in the price lists submitted for approval. The Asstt. Collector provisionally approved the price lists, but later issued show cause notices questioning the exclusion of royalty amounts and advertisement costs. After adjudication, the Asstt. Collector approved the price list, emphasizing that the royalty charges were a return for the sale of the concentrate rather than for the brand name. Additionally, the Asstt. Collector held that advertisement and sales promotion costs were loadable to the prices of the concentrate, following the Supreme Court decision in the case of Bombay Tyre International.

Inclusion of Royalty Charges and Advertisement Costs in Assessable Value:
In the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) referred to a Tribunal decision and held that royalty charges, except for soda bottles, should be included in the assessable value. However, he ruled that advertisement and sales promotion costs could not be added to the assessable value unless linked directly to the marketability of the concentrate. The case was remanded to the Asstt. Collector for further consideration in light of the Tribunal decision. The appellants' advocate acknowledged that the matter was covered by the Tribunal decision, which specified that advertisement expenses for soft drink products manufactured by bottlers should not be included in the assessable value of the concentrates. On the other hand, royalty charges for the brand name usage by bottlers were deemed includible in the assessable value as an additional accrual beyond the concentrate's sale price.

Judgment and Conclusion:
The Tribunal, following its previous decision in the appellants' case, rejected the appeal, finding no merit in challenging the inclusion of royalty charges in the assessable value. The judgment reaffirmed that royalty charges for brand name usage by bottlers should be considered part of the assessable value of the concentrates. The decision highlighted the distinction between advertisement expenses and royalty charges, emphasizing the specific conditions under which each should be included in the assessable value.