9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case, we note that AMAs are not advertising the goods per se but what they are doing is to put an advertisement such as in Yellow Pages and in other places like bill-board so as to indicate that they are dealers of INDEF equipment. The appellant has produced copy of certain advertisement which have been made in the Yellow Pages or the bill board which have been put on the sides of the road. - advertisements are mainly to the effect that a particular dealer deals in the product of the appellant. Thus, these advertisements cannot be called as advertisements for the manufactured goods but are advertisements of the dealer. Undoubtedly, such advertisement indirectly helps the appellant and it is for this reason that they are reimbursing 50% of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred in such advertisement is reimbursed to the dealer by the appellant. Sometimes even the appellant negotiates with certain companies like Tata, Yellow Pages, to include the advertisement on behalf of various dealers. Even in respect of such advertisement, 50% of the cost is borne by the appellant and 50% is recovered from the dealers. Revenue's case is that the 50% of the amount reimbursed by the appellant will form part of the transaction value and, therefore, the appellant is required to pay excise duty on the said amount. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that all the AMAs/dealers are not giving advertisement and the price charged by them for every item in both cases remains the same, i.e. the price charged by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same price to an advertising AMA and to non-advertising AMA, is irrelevant. Further, new Section 4 (3)(d) defines the transaction value and includes any amount relating to advertisement or publicity. The learned AR further submitted the following case laws to support his contention. (i) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi reported in 2011 (274) ELT 539 (Tri-Del) (ii) DCM Engg. Products vs. CCE, Jalandhar reported in 2011 (268) ELT 396 (Tri-Del) (iii) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi - III reported in2010 (257) ELT 226 (Tri-LB) (iv) Voltas Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 2005 (205) ELT 432 (Tri-Bang); (v) CCE vs. Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2012 (283) ELT 161 (SC) 4. We have considered the submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bill-board so as to indicate that they are dealers of INDEF equipment. The appellant has produced copy of certain advertisement which have been made in the Yellow Pages or the bill board which have been put on the sides of the road. Some of these are reproduced below:- 4.2 From these advertisements, it is clear that the advertisements are mainly to the effect that a particular dealer deals in the product of the appellant. Thus, these advertisements cannot be called as advertisements for the manufactured goods but are advertisements of the dealer. Undoubtedly, such advertisement indirectly helps the appellant and it is for this reason that they are reimbursing 50% of the expenses. 5. We also note that the Revenue had demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
