9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was accepted by the Department for provisional assessment. On finalisation of the wholesale price with the distributor, the differential duty arising due to the difference between provisional price and the final price agreed to between M/s. TELCO and the assessee was paid as calculated by the assessee. Show cause notice dt. 11-12-1998 was issued, demanding various amounts on different grounds. The Assistant Commissioner, Pune in the Order-in-Original dt. 9-2-1999 specifically held that the advertisement expenses incurred by the sole distributor (TELCO) should be added to the assessable value after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Metal Box India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1995 (75) E.L.T. 449 (S.C.)] and also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough a number of dealers. It has already been laid down in the Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. that all these expenses which are essential to the marketing of the goods would have to be included in the assessable value of the goods. Thus the order of the Commissioner (A) is not maintainable liable to be set aside on this account. 3. We have considered the grounds of appeal. It is represented before us on behalf of the assessee that the assessee has incurred Rs. 2,78,58,481/- towards the advertisement expenses on which duty has already been paid as the manufacturer had not claimed any deduction. During the period up to 31-12-1996 the distributor has spent Rs. 2,88,58,481/-. It is clarified tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the trade discount allowed to him observing that advertising expenses which the dealer met benefitted the manufacturer as well as the dealer. In these circumstances, the decision in Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. must be confined to the facts of the case, particularly in the light of Philips India Ltd. 4. In the instance case it is an admitted fact that the assessee has sold the cars manufactured by it to the sole distributor. When that is the position we have to follow the judgment of the Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Besta Cosmetics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad as facts in the instant case are identical. It must be borne in mind that the amount spent by the purchaser is after the property in the goods have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
