Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Hindustan Motors Limited vs Commissioner Of Central on 20 May, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
E/823/06/MAS
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.22/06 dt.30.6.06 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honbe Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Honble Mr. P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
M/s. Hindustan Motors Limited
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Central
Excise, Chennai-II
Respondent
Appearance:
Sh. V. Balasubramaniam, Adv. Sh. R.P. Meena, SDR For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President Mr. P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing :20.5.2009 Date of decision: 20.5.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per JYOTI BALASUNDARAM By the impugned order demand of duty of Rs.57,71,287/- together with interest has been confirmed against the appellants, who are manufacturers of motor vehicles, as represented differential value of motor vehicles cleared by the appellants to the dealers during the period September 2001 to December 2005, such differential value being the cost of advertisement incurred by the dealers. In addition, penalty of equal amount has been imposed upon the assessee.
2. We have heard both sides on the appeal against the demand. We find that the issue, as to whether such advertisement expenses incurred by the dealers in the absence of any obligation on the part of the dealers under any agreement with the manufacturers, is no longer res integra as it stands settled by the decisions of the Tribunal in the context amended Section 4, in the case of Featherlite Products (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2005 (191) ELT 487 (Tri.Bang)] and Amco Batteries Limited Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2007 (207) ELT 612 (Tri.Bang)] the Tribunal holding that the advertisement and sales promotion expenses incurred by the dealers themselves for their own purpose are not includible in the assessable value of the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellants. In the present case, there is no written agreement or any obligation in the dealers to incur advertisement expenses and oral agreement either has been presumed or inferred by the adjudicating authority.
3. The ratio of the decisions cited supra are therefore squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and following the same, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(P. KARTHIKEYAN) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
MEMBER (T) VICE PRESIDENT
Swamy
??
??
??
??
2