9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... khar, Dy. Manager Excise Per: M.V. Ravindran These two appeals are filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. BR(361)18/MV/2005 dated 11.02.2005 and order-in-original No. 03/CEX/2004 dated 31.01.2005. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue that falls for consideration in these appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmit that the order passed by the adjudicating authority is incorrect. He would submit that the dealers agreement says that the dealer is bound in terms of contract to undertake advertisements, sales promotion, marketing and aftersale services of the goods. He would submit that the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. - 1983 (14) ELT 1896 (S.C.) and Govt. of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be set aside as the adjudicating authority has passed the order without analyzing the documents on the evidence. 5. Learned Counsel would submit that in the respondent's own case for the period prior 01.07.2000, Tribunal in final order dated 01.12.2005 held in favour of the respondent as to non-inclusion of advertisement cost incurred by the dealer in the assessable value and the said judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench by final order dated 01.12.2005 has held that the issue of cost of advertising, marking, publicity incurred by the dealer from their margin cannot be included in the assessable value of the vehicle. It is the respondent's submission that the said order of the Tribunal dated 01.02.2005 has not been challenged by the Revenue and has become final. If it is so, the adjudicating authority was co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
