2017 (4) TMI 599 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - advertisement/publicity activity - reimbursable expenses - includibility - 70% expenses were already included in the assessable value by the assessee-Appellants. The dispute is regarding 30% expenses borne by the dealers - Held that - This issue was adjudicated by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Surat Vs Surat Textile Mills Ltd., 2004 (4) TMI 81 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , wherein it was held that only when a manufacturer has enforceable legal right against his customers/ dealers to insist on incurring of expenses on advertisement, the advertisement expenses incurred by the dealers can be added to the assessable value - amount not to be included in assessable value - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Claim of advertisement/publicity expenses in assessable value for discharge of excise duty.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs & Central Excise, Meerut-II. The assessee-Appellants were engaged in manufacturing excisable goods and incurred expenses on advertising/publicity activities to promote sales. The Department disallowed the claim of the assessee-Appellants, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal heard both sides and examined the case details.

The assessee-Appellants had a scheme called the 'Joint Publicity Scheme (JPS)' where 70% of the advertising expenses incurred by dealers were reimbursed by the assessee-Appellants. The remaining 30% of expenses were borne by the dealers themselves. The dispute arose regarding whether these 30% expenses borne by the dealers should be included in the assessable value of the goods for excise duty calculation purposes.

Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal highlighted the requirement of an enforceable legal right for manufacturers to insist on dealers incurring advertising expenses to include such expenses in the assessable value. Citing the case of CCE, Surat Vs Surat Textile Mills Ltd. and other relevant judgments, the Tribunal concluded that unless manufacturers have a legal right to enforce dealers to bear advertising expenses, those expenses should not be added to the assessable value.

Based on the settled legal position and precedents, the Tribunal found no reason to uphold the impugned order. Consequently, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the appeal filed by the assessee-Appellants was allowed. The decision was dictated and pronounced in the open court, providing clarity on the treatment of advertising expenses in the assessable value for excise duty calculation.