9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Briefly stated relevant facts for the disposal of the appeal are that the appellants are manufacturers/bottlers of aerated water under brand names of M/s. Coca Cola Company falling under Chapter heading 2202.20 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants are purchasing duty paid non-alcoholic beverage Bases (NABB) from M/s. Britco Food Company Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s. Coca Cola Company. The aerated waters manufactured by the appellants are chargeable to central excise duty at ad valorem rates. 3. As per franchise agreement dated 18-11-1993 with M/s. Coca Cola Company, the appellants were required to buy NABB from M/s. Britco Food Company Ltd. and M/s. Coca Cola Company had right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d penalty of equal amount. 6. Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the demand has been confirmed in violation of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which provides that the transaction value in relation to non-excisable goods is a function of price and the value derived from normal price at the factory gate charged to un-related person on wholesale basis at the time and place of removal. Expanding on argument, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that admittedly, the appellants have paid excise duty at the time of removal of goods on wholesale value which was common for all the customers as determined by the principal manufacturer M/s. Coc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Food Company Ltd. to the assessee for confirming the demand of excise duty. 8. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the records. The short question which arises for determination in the present case - whether the Department has been able to establish that intrinsic price of aerated water charged by the appellants from the wholesaler was more than the price actually charged to the buyers? 9. Similar question came up before the Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Meerut-I v. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein the Supreme Court decided against the Department with the following inter alia, observing thus :- 11. At the outset, it may be mentioned that under Section 4(1)(a), "value" in relation to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tually charged to the buyer? According to the department, the actual price was lower on account of incentives given by M/s. Britco, the supplier of concentrates to the assessee. As found by the adjudicating authority as well as by the Tribunal, the prices had to be reduced by the assessee on account of competition in the market. Further, the prices stood reduced on account of concession given by M/s. Britco, supplier of concentrates (raw material), to the assessee. There is no evidence of flow back of any additional consideration from the buyers of aerated water (beverage) to the assessee. On account of cut throat competition from Pepsi, M/s. Britco had to provide incentive to the assessee. But for the incentive from the supplier of concent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
