9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made treating whole sale price as assessable value. 2. During 1994-95 Pepsi Foods Ltd. issued certain credit notes to the appellant. Under the impugned order, it has been held that the amounts represented in the credit notes are required to be included for the purpose of Central Excise Duty. We may read the finding :- 6. As regards merits, these expenses which are sought to be included in the assessable value by the impugned order were a part of the advertisement, marketing and sales promotion activities incurred by the appellant and were reimbursed to them partly by M/s P.F.L. As per the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (SC), the Hon ble court has observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bottled by the appellant was not being sold. Learned counsel would contend that if those costs are to form part of the assessable value, it should be the value of goods produced by Pepsi Foods Ltd. 4. Learned SDR would point out that since the soft drink in question is of Pepsi brand and the cost is incurred towards advertisement of soft drinks, the lower authorities were right in ordering the inclusion of those costs in the assessable value of soft drinks. 5. We may note a summary of the credit notes first :- Credit Note No. Amount (in Rs.) Reason 747/30-12-94 54,756 On account of aerated water supplied by appellant to M/s. PFL, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 1,03,181/-vide Bill No. 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken by Pepsi Foods Ltd. Certain amounts were the cost of Pepsi supplied to Pepsi Foods Ltd., certain amount was licence fee deposit on behalf of Pepsi Foods, certain expenses were incurred at Wagha border, Delhi etc. far away from the area of appellant s sales. The appellant made those payments initially and was reimbursed through credit notes. Thus, there is no cost incurred by the appellant nor can they be related to promotion of appellant s sales. The order has been passed relying on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. as reported at 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.). That judgment ruled that costs incurred by a manufacturer towards promoting his product would form par of assessabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
