Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)Duke And Sons (P) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 29 December, 1989
13 The applicant have relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Duke and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported at 1991 (55) E.L.T. 577. The learned SDR has stated that the facts in that case were distinguishable. While the facts have to be gone into in detail at the stage of the final disposal of the matter, prima facie it appears that in the case of Duke & Sons (P) Ltd. there was no evidence that the sale of concentrate and franchise fees were interlinked. In that case the agreements under which the franchise fees were paid, was entirely distinct, separate and independent from the sale of the concentrate to the buyers and there was no link between the two. In Para 8 of their decision the Tribunal have held as under :
Collector Of Customs vs Maruti Udyog Limited on 24 December, 1986
"D.5. Without prejudice and in any case the advertisement expenses incurred by the appellants are for the soft drinks manufactured by the bottlers. Such expenses are not required for the marketability of the concentrate manufactured and cleared by us. Even in terms of Supreme Court decision in the Bombay Tyres International case, it is only the advertisement and sale promotion activity undertaken for the goods under assessment, can be added to the assessable value. The advertisement expenses incurred in respect of the product not manufactured and cleared by the appellants cannot be added to the assessable value of the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellants. Inasmuch as advertisement expenses incurred by the appellants are for the soft drinks, they cannot be held to includible in the assessable value of the concentrate manufactured by the appellants. The impugned order of the collector (Appeals) demanding duty on the advertisement expenses incurred by the appellants by notionally adding the said expenses on a prorata basis to the assessable value of the concentrates is therefore incorrect and liable to be set-aside."
Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Bombay Tyre International Ltd. Etc. Etc on 7 October, 1983
The name by which such extra sums are described is of no relevance.The Hon. Supreme Court in their clarificatory decision in the case of UOI v. Bombay Tyres International with regard to trade discounts have held that the discounts allowed in the trade by whatever name such discount is described should be allowed to be deducted from the sale price. The same logic could be applied to the extra collections. Thus the actual nature of the sums and not the name, is what is relevant for exclusions and inclusions from the assessable value.
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Hubli Chemical Works vs Collector Of Central Excise on 2 July, 1984
In this connection reference may be made to the Tribunal's decisions in the cases of (1) Hubli Chemical Works v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras - 1984 (18) E.L.T. 488 (Trib.)
Rana Rubber Industries vs Collector Of Central Excise on 26 October, 1987
and (2) Rana Rubber Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Mecrut - 1987 (32) E.L.T. 433 (Trib.) where in it has been held that the extra amounts recovered by the assessee from the buyers are to be taken into account for the purposes of levy of central excise duty. In Para 10 of the decision in the case of Hubli Chemical Works referred to above the Tribunal had held that "the money recovered in excess of the effective duty must form part of the assessable value unless it is shown to be deductible for any other reason, such as being a sales tax." When such is the case with regard to the statutory levies, the extra collections in this case do not prima facie appear to be deductible sums and should form part of the price for arriving at the central excise duty liability.
1