9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cosmetics Ltd. [2005 (3) TMI 130 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], Hon’ble Supreme Court took a view that advertisement expenses cannot be included or added to the assessable value. We find that both these decisions are applicable to the facts of this case and Commissioner (appeals) has simply ignored the citation in the case of Philips India Ltd. referred to by the appellants in their appeal memorandum. As regards related persons, the proper course to adopt would have been to take the value at which the goods are sold by the related person to the customers for the purpose of levying central excise duty. In the absence of such a step being taken, we are required to examine the correctness of inclusion of advertisement expenses in the assessable v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure incurred by Kitex to the assessable value of the goods cleared by the appellants on the ground that the price was not the sole consideration and advertisement expenses is to be considered as development cost. This was added to the assessable value by invoking Rule 11 of Central Excise Valuation Rules read with Rule 6 of Valuation Rules 2000. While adding the advertisement cost, the entire advertisement expenses incurred by Kitex including various products such as lungies, dhotis, mull, bed sheets, umbrellas, bags etc. was added as submitted by the appellants. 4. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the Commissioner has taken a view that appellants and Kitex are related persons because they have a common management and 82% of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... management. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. As regards addition of advertisement expenses, we find that the demand is no longer res integra. In the case of Phillips India Ltd Vs Collector of Central Excise, Pune [1997(91)ELT 540 (SC)] and in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Surat Vs Besta Cosmetics Ltd. [2005 (183)ELT 132 (S.C.)], Hon ble Supreme Court took a view that advertisement expenses cannot be included or added to the assessable value. We find that both these decisions are applicable to the facts of this case and Commissioner (appeals) has simply ignored the citation in the case of Philips India Ltd. referred to by the appellants in their appeal memorandum. As regards related persons, the prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
