2004 (2) TMI 587

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... President]. In this appeal the issue raised is whether the advertisement charges incurred by M/s. Fulford India Ltd. buyer of six items of P P medicines manufactured by the appellant is to be included in the assessable value of the product. Commissioner (Appeals) following the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1997 (95) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t of its cost reduction exercise and there is a shifting of advertisement and promotion cost to Darshak. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal took the view that price was not sole consideration. According to the appellant, appellant as well as its buyer M/s. Fulford India Ltd. are incurring expenditure on sales promotion, and there is nothing to show that its transaction with Fulford India Ltd. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se of Philips India Ltd. held that when the manufacturer is sharing the advertisement expenses with dealers, such advertisement cost cannot be added to the assessable value of the product cleared by the assessee. In the present case, we find that there are no circumstances which would justify the ratio of the decision in Alembic Glass Inds. to be applied. We, therefore, find no reason to affirm th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X