2012 (9) TMI 673

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the Respondent. [Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. - Revenue is in appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), who has set aside the adjudication order wherein while finalizing the provisional assessment, it was held that marketing, distribution and advertisement expenses are includible in the assessable value declared by the respondents. 2. Shri Y.K. Agarwal the learned SD .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... supported the impugned order by relying on the decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. Cadbury India Ltd. reported in 2006 (200) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) and Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-IV v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. reported in 2009 (246) E.L.T. 390 (Tri.-Mumbai). He also submitted that the Revenue itself is relying on Board's Circular to arrive at the assessable value as per CAS-4 f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dia Ltd. (supra) that the Board Circular is having retrospective effect and the correct method to arrive at assessable value for the goods captively used by sister unit in manufacturing of final product is only CAS-4, therefore, the circular is clarificatory in nature. Therefore we do not find any merit in Revenue's appeal, accordingly, by upholding the impugned orders, we dismiss the Revenue's ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X