Assessable value exclusion for recovered advertising expenses upheld; non-disclosure alone could not justify duty demand.

Advertising expenses incurred by the manufacturer and later recovered from the buyer were not includible in the assessable value of the manufactured hoists because they did not form part of the value of the goods. The attempt to support inclusion on the basis that the expenditure had not been disclosed to the department was rejected, since non-disclosure of an amount that is not legally includible cannot justify a duty demand. The Commissioner (Appeals)' addition was therefore unsustainable, and the demand based on inclusion of the advertising expenses was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the advertising expenses incurred by the manufacturer and later recovered from the buyer were includible in the assessable value of the manufactured hoists.

Analysis: The exclusion of such advertising expenses from assessable value had already been decided in the assessee's own earlier matters. The attempt to justify inclusion on the ground that the expenditure had not been disclosed to the department was rejected, since disclosure was not required where the expense itself was not part of assessable value.

Conclusion: The advertising expenses were not includible in the assessable value, and the addition made by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the demand based on inclusion of the advertising expenses was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Expenditure incurred by the manufacturer and recovered from the buyer is not includible in assessable value where it does not form part of the value of the manufactured goods, and failure to disclose such non-includible expenditure does not justify duty demand.

---