Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Hindustan Sanitaryware And Industries ... vs Cce on 13 January, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(77)ECR168(TRI.-DELHI)
ORDER G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order-in-original No. 65/Additional Collector./1990, dated 16.8.1990.
2. Shri B.D. Ahmed, Id. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the dispute is in respect of advertisement charges. He said that the appellants incurred a total sum of Rs. 73,05,791.92 towards advertisement cost for the period March, 1987 to July, 1989. The appellants received a sum of Rs. 1500/-and Rs. 4,93,539.50 during the March, 1987 to June, 1987 and July, 1987 to July, 1989 respectively towards subsidised cost of catalogues, calendars, display boards etc. from such of their dealers who had specifically asked for supply of the same. He submitted that the Collector misdirected himself and observed that whatever amount has been spent by the party was recovered from the dealers. The Collector has taken note of only Rs. 4,93,539.50. Shri Ahmed said that out of advertisement expenditure Rs. 68,27,618.36 for the period July, 1987 to July, 1989, the appellants received a sum of Rs. 4,93,539.50 but the Collector mistook, this amount as entire expenditure incurred by the appellants and the same was recovered from them. That is factually wrong. He submitted that though the Collector has taken the figure of 68,27,618.36 but still he proceeded as if the amount spent by the party is only Rs. 4,93,539.50 and the same was recovered from the dealers. Since there is an error with reference to factual position, he submits that this factual position requires to be examined.
3. Shri K. Srivastava, Id. SDR on going through the findings of the order conceded that the Collector has overlooked the submissions with reference to the figures and that the matter may be remanded for reconsideration.
4. In the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration that the Collector misdirected himself in taking note of the figures with reference to the advertisement expenses incurred by the party and recovery amount from the respective dealers, we are of the view that this requires thorough examination. Since the case law has developed on the point with reference to the expenses incurred by the dealers as well as manufacturers, the jurisdictional Collector is directed to take into consideration the developed case law and to pass an order accordingly. It was also submitted by the Id. counsel that the amount Rs. 73,05,791.92 was also included in the assessable value and there was no justification to include separate sum of Rs. 4,93,539.50 and Rs. 1,500 to add in determining the assessable value.
5. In view of the discrepancies in factual position, we are remanding the matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after taking into consideration the observations made by us and after providing an opportunity to the appellants. The jurisdictional adjudicating authority may also examine the limitation point while deciding the issue.
(Dictated in Court)