9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e discount is not to be included in the assessable value if it is known price to sale. Some view has been expressed by the Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., reported in [1995 (5) TMI 28 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. In this case from the records it is clear that discount policy was known to the dealers and discount in form of free duty paid bottles of aerated waters were given to the dealers in accordance with the discount policy. Therefore it cannot be said that the discount was not known prior to sale. In view of this, the impugned order dis-allowing the deduction of this trade discount given in form of free duty paid bottles of aerated waters is not correct. There is no evidence to show that this expens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period the aerated waters, in question, were being sold by them to their dealers at ₹ 93.90 per crate while the assessable value of the goods on which duty was being paid was ₹ 44 per create. The difference between the sale price to dealers and the assessable value was accounted for as ₹ 22.00 per crate as excise duty, ₹ 9.90 per crate as sales tax, ₹ 11.00 per crate as freight and ₹ 7.00 per crate as rent on containers. The freight charges and rent on containers at the above mentioned rates of ₹ 11.00 per crate and ₹ 7.00 per crate respectively were being recovered separately by debit note issued to dealers. 1.2 The officers of the DGCEI searched the factory and the office premises of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t confiscation of the land, building, plant machinery of the Appellant Company, under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 1.3 The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner Central Excise (Adj) vide Order-in-Original dt. 02.02.2001 by which the duty demand of ₹ 59,68,534/- was confirmed against the appellant and penalty of equal amount imposed on them under section 11AC. The Commissioner also demanded interest on the duty demand confirmed under the Provisions of Section 11AB besides imposition of penalty of equal amount on them under section 11AC. Penalty of ₹ 2000/- was also imposed on the appellant under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules. The land, building, plant machinery of the appellant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icity , incentive and discount to dealers and vehicle and handling staff cost to the extent of 75% , that incentive and discount to the dealers is the discount given on purchase of certain quantity of crates in form of certain number of bottles of aerated waters being supplied free, that this is nothing but trade discount which was being given as per the discount policy of the appellant, that since it was known and was available to all the dealers prior to sale, in terms of the Apex Court judgment in case of Union of India Vs. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (1983 ELT 1896), its deduction has to be allowed, that expenses on Advertisement and Publicity are, in fact the expenses on painting of name and logo of Pepsi on the vans and tru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nown prior to sale, that expense incurred on advertisement and publicity as shown in the Balance Sheet have to be part of the assessable value, that similarly the vehicle maintenance cost, loading/unloading charges and handling staff cost is also required to be part of the assessable value, that the extended period has been correctly invoked by the Commissioner as the relevant facts have been suppressed by the appellant from the Department and that in view of the above submissions, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The dispute in this case is only about inclusion in the assessable value of the expenses incurred on advertisement and publicity , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f M/s. Pepsi Food and this fact is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that this expense had been incurred on Advertisement Publicity Campaign organized by the appellant. Even if this is so, since this expense has been incurred by the Appellant, it is deemed to be included in the assessable value. Therefore, the impugned order confirming the duty demand on the expenses shown in the Balance Sheets on Advertisement and Publicity , is not correct. 8. As regards the expense shown in the Balance Sheets under the heading Vehicle and Handling Staff Cost , appellant s plea is that this expense includes the salaries to the drivers and helpers and expenses on maintenance of the vehicles being used for transportation and also expense inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
