Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)
M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd vs Cce, Chennai on 21 April, 2008 cites

C.C.E., Indore vs M/S. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. on 18 April, 2001

In the case of CCE Vs. Bajaj Tempo Ltd., [2005 (180) ELT 289 (S.C.), the apex Court observed in Phillips India and Mahindra and Mahindra cases, the Court had found if similar expenses as impugned had been incurred by the assessee, on his own account, or, by the dealer, on his own account. In the absence of such a finding in the case impugned before it, the Court remanded the matter for making such a finding.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Bombay Tyre International Ltd. Etc. Etc on 7 October, 1983

10.4 In the Phillips India case the Apex Court disapproved denial of discount as abatement by the Department on the ground that the dealer had incurred expenditure for publicizing the assessees product. The Apex Court held in that case that when an activity undertaken by the buyer benefited the assessee and the buyer in equal degree, the expenditure incurred by the buyer on that activity could not be held to have been incurred on behalf of the assessee. The ratio of the decision is that the share of expenditure incurred by the customer on publicity to promote sale of its products cannot be held to have been incurred on behalf of the manufacturer and so not includible in the assessable value. [Even the expenditure of Rs.3,39,23,662/- incurred on customer satisfaction survey was debited to the dealers only to the extent of Rs.1,35,20,000/-. This amount has been described in the impugned order as spent on sales promotion measures.]This was also the ratio of the following decisions by the Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 507 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise, Surat vs M/S. Surat Textiles Mills Ltd. & Ors on 26 April, 2004

8. The Ld. SDR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. She invited our attention to the Commissioners reference to the apex Courts observation in Surat Textile Ltd. case (supra) that the position settled by the Tribunal on the issue was that the expenditure on advertisement etc which the buyer was contractually bound to incur was includible in the assessable value . She read over to us the provisions of the dealership agreement and highlighted the obligation of the dealer to follow the instructions issued from time to time by the assessee. According to her, the clauses of the dealership agreement made it clear that the assessee had an enforceable legal right against the dealer to incur expenditure to promote sales of the assessees products.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 15 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Commissioner Of C. Ex. And Customs vs Besta Cosmetics Ltd. on 24 January, 2003

10.5 We find that in CCE Vs. Besta Cosmetics Ltd., case reported in 2005 (183) ELT 122 (S.C.), the Apex Court had held that in the absence of an enforceable legal right with the assessee to insist on the advertisement under the agreement, the expenditure for the advertisement incurred by the customer was not liable to be included in the assessable value of the assessees products.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 4 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 Next