9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cleared by it during 2000 to 2005. 2. M/s. Ford India Private Ltd. (FIPL for short), the appellants herein, manufacture various models of cars and sell them through a national network of dealers. The transactions between FIPL and its dealers are governed by 'Dealer Sales and Service Agreement' (the agreement).,The issue involved in this appeal is whether the expenditure incurred by dealers in promoting sales of assessee's products by advertising them in the print media, static display etc. is includible in the assessable value of cars. The sales promotion campaigns were undertaken by one or several dealers together or jointly by the dealers and financiers such as Ford Credit, HDFC Bank, ING Vysya etc. In most such cases, FIPL reimburse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cash or their discounts, plus any additional charges made by the company including but not limited to: 1. distribution and delivery, 2. advertising, …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3. The ld. Counsel for the representative submitted that whatever expenditure was incurred by the assessee on advertising was included in the sale price to their dealers and that the dealers/financiers had advertised the cars for their own benefit. There was no written or oral agreement, requiring the dealers to advertise the cars. The finding of the Commissioner to the contrary was with out any basis. The assessee had never charged the dealers for advertising in addition to the price ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ze their profit. Though FIPL reimbursed part of the advertisement expenditure incurred by the dealers on advertising, the assessee did not have any enforceable legal right against the dealers to require them to incur expenditure on advertisement. Therefore, the expenditure incurred by the dealers or financiers is not includible in the assessable value of the cars. In a case of similar facts, in CCE v. M/s. Gangadharam Appliances Ltd. reported in 2007-TIOL-372-- CESTAT-MAD, this Bench had held that for including advertisement costs in the assessable value, it should be shown that such cost was incurred by the customers compulsorily. In Amco Batteries Ltd. v. CCE, 2007 (207) E.L.T. 612 (Tri.-Bang.). the Tribunal held that in the absence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
