Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Yes vs Unknown on 21 April, 2008
Appeal /appn. No. E/131/08; E/S/131/08 Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 128/2007(Ahd-III)CE/ID/Commr(A) dt.16/11/2007 Passed by: Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad For approval and signature: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. B.S.V.Murthy, 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?
:
No
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
:
Seen
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? :
Yes ====================================================== Appellant/s Represented by M/s.Tudor India Ltd. None Vs. Respondent/s Represented by CCE, Ahmedabad Dr.M.K.Rajak, SDR CORAM:
MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MR. B.S.V. MURTHY, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing:
21/4/2008 Date of Decision:
21/4/2008 ORDER No. /WZB/AHD/2008 Per: Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) After rejecting the request for adjournment, we proceed to decide the stay petition as also appeal inasmuch as we find that in the same appellants case, Tribunal vide its order No.A/307/WZB/AHD/2007 dt. 3/12/2007 has remanded a identical dispute for the earlier period. For better appreciation, we reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the above order.
The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the advertisement expenses incurred by the dealer are to be included in the assessable value of the appellants product. Though the issue is squarely covered by Honble Supreme Courts decision in case of M/s.Philips India Ltd.[1997(91) ELT 540(SC)], the appellate authority has not followed the same by taking note of one internal circular of the appellant company which is to the effect that all the advertisement expenses incurred by dealer would be reimbursed by the appellant.
The learned advocate Ms.Avani Mehta, appearing for the appellant submits that such circular was to the effect that only part of the advertisement expenses incurred by the dealer would be reimbursed. Such permissible reimbursement in terms of fixed budget already stands included in the assessable value of their product. They submit that they have already placed a Chartered Accountants letter to that effect before the Commissioner(Appeals), which is not considered and discussed by him. We find that the law on the issue stands declared by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Philips India Ltd., which is to be followed. This decision has also been followed in Tribunals decision in the case of Amco Batteries Vs. CCE, Bangalore, as reported in 2007(207) ELT 612(Tri. Ban.). As such, the dispute relates to the factual position which can only be verified at the original level.
For the said purpose, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original Adjudicating Authority for decide the matter afresh after examining the appellants claim in the light of Honble Supreme Courts decision in case of M/s.Philips India Ltd. cited supra.
2. The dispute in the present appeal is identical. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to original Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision in the light of the observations made in the order reproduced above. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand and stay petition also gets disposed of.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court) (B.S.V.Murthy) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) Nr 3