2000 (11) TMI 885 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of advertisement expenses in the assessable value for duty calculation.
2. Whether advertisement costs are already covered in commissions and should not be loaded separately.

Issue 1 - Inclusion of advertisement expenses in assessable value:
The appeal challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order which included advertisement expenses borne by selling agents in the assessable value for duty calculation. The agreement between the assessee and the agents required advertising as per established budgets, with expenses to be shared as mutually agreed. The Commissioner rejected the contention that these expenses were covered by commissions paid to agents. Relying on the Dyeing and Proofing Ltd. case, the Commissioner upheld the show cause notice and ordered the inclusion of advertisement expenses in the assessable value as per the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Issue 2 - Advertisement costs covered in commissions:
The appellants argued that advertisement costs were already included in the commissions paid to agents and, therefore, should not be separately loaded for duty calculation. The Supreme Court decision in Philips India Ltd. was cited, which held that when advertisement benefits both the appellant and the dealer equally, the cost should be shared. As no deductions were claimed for advertisement costs covered in commissions, there was no justification for loading the value as proposed in the show cause notice.

Judgment:
The Tribunal found that the advertisement costs were already covered in the commissions paid to agents and should not be separately loaded for duty calculation. Citing the Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that as no deductions were claimed for advertisement costs covered in commissions, there was no basis for including these costs in the assessable value. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, in accordance with the law.