2005 (2) TMI 371

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 189/2003, dated 17-11-2003 by which the department has confirmed demands on the advertisement charges borne by the appellants dealer for the period from 1-4-2001 to 31-3-2002 under the proviso to Section 11A of the C.E. Act. The appellants had denied that the advertisement charges were incurred by the dealer on their behalf. They have also stated that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed by it with regard to non-inclusion of the advertisement charges in the assessable value if the same has been incurred by the dealer as held in the case of Philips India Ltd v. C.C.E. [1997 (91) E.L.T. 540]. In this case, the appellants had issued debit notes cancelling the credit notes and they have asserted that they have not benefited from the advertisements charges. It is the dealer who has .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X