2008 (7) TMI 83 - SC - Central Excise

Tribunal in its impugned order has exceeded its jurisdiction by recording a finding that GSL , appellant is a related person with PGG - tribunal s finding that the advertisement charges incurred by PGG can be loaded to the assessable value of the soaps manufactured by GSL is beyond the scope of SCN - order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal

Summary

Issues:
1. Scope of show cause notices served by different Commissioners.
2. Jurisdiction of the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.
3. Related person status between two entities.
4. Advertisement charges and assessable value.
5. Non-competition agreement and trademarks valuation.
6. Limitation period for show cause notice.
7. Finalization of assessment and penalties.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of show cause notices served by two Commissioners. It was noted that the assessment in Bombay was provisional, leading to the conclusion that the penalty did not apply in that case. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in this regard.

2. The Tribunal's jurisdiction came into question regarding the related person status between Godrej Soap Limited (GSL) and Procter Gamble Godrej Limited (PGG). The Court found that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by determining GSL as a related person to PGG, a finding beyond the show cause notice's scope. Thus, this aspect of the Tribunal's decision was set aside.

3. Regarding the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner (Indore), the Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's order. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration on various issues, including the loading of advertisement charges to the assessable value based on the related person status between GSL and PGG.

4. The Court directed the Tribunal to decide afresh on specific issues, including advertisement charges, non-competition agreement amounts, and trademarks valuation. The Tribunal was instructed to make decisions in accordance with the law.

5. The question of limitation for the show cause notice related to the Malanpur factory was left for the Tribunal to decide separately after considering all relevant facts. All contentions were kept open for both parties.

6. The Court ordered the finalization of assessment in Bombay by the Jurisdictional Officer after the Tribunal's decision on the issues related to Malanpur. Emphasizing the lengthy litigation process, the Court requested the Tribunal to expedite the matter's resolution within six months.

7. Penalties levied in the impugned order were set aside, to be decided by the Tribunal when passing a fresh order. Additionally, in Civil Appeal Nos. 3761-3762 of 2002, the penalty was agreed to be set aside by the parties, and the Court ordered accordingly, disposing of the appeals.