2005 (2) TMI 371 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against confirmation of demands on advertisement charges under Section 11A of the C.E. Act.

Analysis:
The appeal in question arose from Order-in-Appeal No. 189/2003, where demands on advertisement charges borne by the dealer were confirmed for a specific period. The appellants contested that the advertisement charges were not incurred on their behalf and provided evidence that they were not the beneficiaries of the advertisements. They argued that they had issued debit notes and were not liable to bear the advertisement charges. However, their plea was rejected, and the charges were added to the assessable value. The Tribunal considered the issue in light of the Apex Court's judgment in C.C.E. v. Surat Textiles Mills Ltd., where it was held that advertisement charges incurred by the dealer should not be included in the assessable value. The appellants had also referred to the case of Philips India Ltd v. C.C.E., supporting their claim. Given the evidence presented and the legal precedents cited, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, stating that the appeal should be allowed with any consequential relief.

This judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between advertisement charges incurred by the dealer and those borne by the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized the need to follow legal precedents set by the Apex Court, which clarified that advertisement charges should not be included in the assessable value if borne by the dealer. The appellants' issuance of debit notes and their assertion of not benefiting from the advertisements played a crucial role in the Tribunal's decision. By aligning with established legal principles and case law, the Tribunal ensured a fair and just outcome in this appeal concerning the liability for advertisement charges under the C.E. Act.