1994 (8) TMI 34 - SC - Central Excise

Whether remand of case by Appellate Tribunal correct? Held that - It appears that the Tribunal has adopted an easy course in remitting the matter to the Collector. On the materials on record, being an appellate authority, the Tribunal itself should have analysed the evidence and given a factual conclusion. If this course had been adopted the decision could have been rendered in one way or the other. The remit was superfluous and the parties had argued at length. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remit the matter to it. The Tribunal is directed to decide the issues involved on their merits.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against the order of Customs, Central Excise and Gold (Control) Tribunal dated 30th September, 1993.
- Inclusion of advertisement and publicity expenses, testing expenses in the assessable value of products.
- Allegation of suppression of facts.
- Decision by the Collector of Central Excise in favor of the appellant.
- Appeal to CEGAT and remittal of the matter for a fresh decision.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed under Section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against the order of the Customs, Central Excise and Gold (Control) Tribunal dated 30th September, 1993. The Tribunal had allowed the review/appeal filed by the Excise Department, setting aside the order of the Collector of Central Excise dated 30th May, 1990, and remitting the matter for a fresh decision.

2. The case involved the inclusion of advertisement and publicity expenses, as well as testing expenses, in the assessable value of products manufactured by M/s. M.G. Shahani & Company (Delhi) Ltd. The appellant argued that these expenses incurred by Colgate Palmolive could not be included in the assessable value of their products. The Collector of Central Excise found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the independence of the two companies and the principal-to-principal basis of their transactions.

3. The Collector's finding highlighted that M/s. M.G. Shahani & Company manufactured goods independently for Colgate Palmolive under the latter's brand names. The Collector held that the advertisement charges incurred by Colgate Palmolive and the testing charges incurred after product clearance had no nexus to the assessable value of the products sold by M/s. M.G. Shahani & Company.

4. The Tribunal, in its impugned order, directed the matter to be remitted back to the Collector for a fresh decision with detailed reasoning after hearing the respondents. The Tribunal was of the view that a detailed analysis was warranted, especially regarding the contention of the demand being time-barred.

5. The appellant contended that the Tribunal should have analyzed the evidence and rendered a finding itself, as all relevant materials were before it. The Department argued that the Collector had misdirected himself by merely referring to certain letters and that a remit was fully warranted.

6. The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the matter back to it. The Court directed the Tribunal to decide the issues involved on their merits, emphasizing that the Tribunal, being an appellate authority, should have analyzed the evidence and given a factual conclusion instead of remitting the matter unnecessarily.