2015 (9) TMI 1209 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Held that - Coca Cola (India) Ltd. was required advertise the product of the respondent along with their own product. It was obligatory on the part of the buyer to advertise the respondent s product in all advertising done by Coca Cola (India) Ltd. on television and press. We also have gone through the show-cause notice and we find that the price offered to Coca Cola (India) Ltd. are in the range 35% to 55% of the normal wholesale price. We also observe that the so called special packing is not very different. CCI have asked the respondent to pack specific number of confectionary items in every polybag. This is for bringing in line with their own system of packing i.e. cratewise. We do not find any specific details so as to indicate that the packing was very different and that would reduce the cost of the product to almost half to one third. - respondent has not been able to produce any quantity discount schedule so as to justify such low values due to higher quantity. Similarly, respondent has not been able to product any costing data relating to packing so as to justify such lower values. - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Assessing the correct value of confectionery items sold to Coca Cola (India) Ltd.
- Determining if the price offered to Coca Cola (India) Ltd. was below the normal wholesale price.
- Analyzing the impact of special packing and quantity discounts on the pricing.
- Interpreting whether additional consideration for advertisement should be added to the assessable value.
- Considering the relevance of case laws in determining the declared value.

Analysis:
1. The case involved assessing the correct value of confectionery items sold to Coca Cola (India) Ltd. The revenue contended that the prices offered were below the normal wholesale price, leading to the issuance of demand notices. The Asst. Commissioner initially dropped the demand, but the revenue appealed. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the declared price based on the grounds that the industrial consumer was a type of wholesale buyer and the packaging of goods sold to Coca Cola (India) Ltd. was different.

2. The Appellate Tribunal analyzed the agreement between the respondent and Coca Cola (India) Ltd., highlighting the obligation of the buyer to advertise the respondent's product along with their own. The Tribunal noted that the quantity discount and different packing did not sufficiently justify the lower prices offered to Coca Cola (India) Ltd. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws and the Supreme Court judgment to support the contention that additional consideration for advertisement should be added to the assessable value.

3. The respondent argued that the prices differed due to packing and production requirements, emphasizing that no special concession was given to Coca Cola (India) Ltd. They presented case laws to support their stance that the declared value should be accepted. However, the Tribunal found that the agreement clearly outlined the advertising obligations of Coca Cola (India) Ltd., justifying the addition of additional consideration for advertisement to the assessable value.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the revenue, allowing the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the obligations outlined in agreements, the impact of advertisement as additional consideration, and the relevance of case laws in determining the correct assessable value of goods sold to specific buyers.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal in determining the correct assessable value of confectionery items sold to Coca Cola (India) Ltd.