2008 (1) TMI 40 - AT - Central Excise

Revenue is of the view that the advertising expenses added in the assessable value of the appellant goods on the ground of both are franchise of same holding company but rejected by the tribunal

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute regarding the assessable value of aerated water manufactured by the appellant and supplied to another company under contract.
2. Whether advertising expenses incurred by the other company should be added to the assessable value.

Analysis:
1. The dispute in the case pertains to the assessable value of aerated water manufactured by the appellant and supplied to M/s Surat Bottling Company under contract. The Commissioner (Appeals) had earlier ruled in favor of the appellant in a related dispute. The Revenue claimed to have challenged this ruling before the Tribunal, but no order setting it aside was available. The Tribunal found that the present appeal could be resolved without reference to the earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The appellant, a franchise holder for manufacturing Maza drinks in Gujarat except Surat, supplied goods to M/s Surat Bottling Company under a contract. The dispute centered around whether the advertising expenses incurred by M/s Surat Bottling Company should be added to the assessable value, as both companies were franchisees of the same holding company, M/s Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the goods were supplied under a contract price, which was undisputed by the Revenue. Therefore, there was no justification for increasing the assessable value by including the advertising expenses of M/s Surat Bottling Company.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief. The judgment highlighted the importance of contractual agreements and the lack of justification for adding expenses unrelated to the manufacturing process to the assessable value of goods.