2016 (11) TMI 822 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - whether the advertisement cost incurred by dealer and promotional materials sold to the dealers are assessable value or not? - Held that - As the issue involved in the matter has already been dealt by this tribunal in appellant s own case M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Versus CCE, Delhi-III 2016 (8) TMI 119 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH wherein this Tribunal held that advertisement cost incurred by the dealers and promotional materials sold to the dealers are not includible in the assessable value. The advertisement expenses incurred by the dealers and promotional materials sold to the dealers are not includible in the assessable value - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Assessable value of advertisement cost and promotional materials sold to dealers.

Analysis:
The key issue in this case pertains to determining whether the advertisement cost incurred by dealers and the promotional materials sold to them should be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment involving the same appellant where it was established that joint advertisements benefit both dealers and manufacturers. However, for such expenses to be added to the assessable value, the manufacturer must have an enforceable legal right against the customer to insist on incurring such advertisement expenses. The Tribunal highlighted that in the present case, the dealers' expenses were not proportionate to the number of vehicles sold, and there was no enforceable legal right for the manufacturer to demand such expenses from the dealers.

Regarding the reimbursement of the cost of complimentary items, the Tribunal examined the dealership agreement clauses related to promotion, advertising, display at outlets, and promotional literature. It was noted that there was no direct link shown between the sale of promotional materials and the sale of vehicles. The Tribunal emphasized that the manufacturer must have an enforceable legal right to insist on the purchase of promotional materials by the dealers for such expenses to be added to the assessable value. In the absence of such a legal right, the Tribunal held that the expenses on promotional materials sold to dealers should not be included in the assessable value.

In a specific case involving another appellant, it was highlighted that there was no obligation on the dealers to buy and distribute promotional materials, and the sale of such materials was not linked to the sale of finished goods. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where similar issues were decided in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that without an enforceable legal right to compel dealers to purchase promotional materials, such expenses should not be considered in the assessable value.

Based on the above observations and legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that the advertisement expenses incurred by dealers and the promotional materials sold to them should not be included in the assessable value. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision clarified the criteria for including advertisement costs and promotional materials in the assessable value, emphasizing the necessity of an enforceable legal right for manufacturers to demand such expenses from dealers. The judgment provided detailed analysis and references to previous cases to support the conclusion that in the absence of a legal obligation on dealers to incur such expenses, they should not be considered in the assessable value.