Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Bajaj Tempo Ltd. on 31 December, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(103)ELT310(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) made in Order-in-Appeal No. P-230/93, dated 8th October, 1993. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) had directed the Assistant Collector to verify that there was no compulsion on the appellant (the respondent before us) to buy any number of cassettes, diaries etc. and the once the list furnished by the respondent is found to be correct, and there is good number of dealers to whom no such sales have been made and once there is no co-relation between the number of vehicles sold and the diaries or video cassettes ordered for, the amount of debit note should not be included in the assessable value. Hence this appeal.
2. It is contended by the Departmental Representative that the finding of the Collector (Appeals) is wrong in law inasmuch as it goes contrary to the decision of the Bombay Tyre International -1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C).
3. We have considered the submissions made by the Departmental Representative and find that here the expenses have been incurred not by the assessee namely the respondent before us. In terms of the observation of the Supreme Court in para 49 of the said judgment where the Supreme Court says that the value of the goods is enriched provides expenses have been incurred by the assessee, only such incidence can be included for the purpose of assessment. Here it is not found specifically that expenses have been incurred by the assessee-respondent. Therefore, where the expenses are incurred by the dealer it will not be included in the assessable value towards the payment of the above amount of the expenses have been incurred only by the dealer. There is no financial flow back from the dealer to the assessee here. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal of the Department is not accepted.
4. Appeal dismissed.