9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jagadish, A.R. JUDGEMENT Per : B.S.V.MURTHY M/s Scoobee Day Products (P) Ltd. Kizhakkambalam (hereinafter referred to as the Appellants), is a Private Limited company and is engaged in the manufacture of school bags falling under chapter sub-heading 4201.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Almost all the goods manufactured by the Appellants were sold to M/s Kitex Ltd (hereinafter referr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is beyond the scope of order-in-original as well as the show-cause notice. He submitted that Rule 6 of Valuation Rules 2000 is not applicable in the present case at all. Since the condition precedent for invoking Rule 6 is that the goods and services should have been supplied at reduced cost for the provision of goods cleared by the assessee. He submits that in this case, there is no such findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
