9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the respondents. In the facts of the case, the sole selling agent is incurring such expenditure from his profit margin. - This is not a case where manufacturer is asking for any deduction from consideration realized by them for the reason that the expense is incurred for advertising the product. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/169/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re doing such advertisement on behalf of the respondents. 2. Revenue relies upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Tyre International Ltd. reported in 1983 (14) ELT 1896 (SC). Based on this argument, a SCN was issued and adjudicated. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for duty. Against that order, the respondents filed an appeal with the Commissioner (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sement and not in a situation where the sole selling agent incurs such expenses for promotion of his sales because the sole selling agent is promoting his business interest and no case has been made out that sole selling agent was paying anything to the respondent more than the price for which excise duty has already been paid. There is no case either that the respondent was reimbursing the expens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
