Advertisement cost cannot be added to assessable value unless incurred for the manufacturer's benefit or at its instance.

A dealer's advertisement expenditure could not be loaded into the manufacturer's assessable value because the record did not show that the advertising was undertaken at the instance of, or on behalf of, the manufacturer. The two entities were limited companies, and the advertised brand belonged to a third party, so the factual link needed to treat the buyer and seller as related persons for valuation purposes was absent. On that basis, inclusion of the advertisement cost in assessable value was rejected and the valuation demand failed on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the advertisement cost incurred by the dealer could be added to the assessable value of the excisable goods on the basis that the buyer and seller were related persons.

Analysis: The addition of advertisement cost was held unsustainable because nothing on record showed that the advertisement was carried out by the buyer at the instance of, or on behalf of, the manufacturer. Both entities were limited companies, and the brand promoted through advertisement belonged to a third party. On these facts, the link necessary to load the manufacturer's assessable value with the dealer's advertisement expenditure was absent.

Conclusion: The advertisement cost could not be added to the assessable value, and the related-person basis for such loading was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, and the valuation demand founded on inclusion of the dealer's advertisement expenses failed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer's advertisement expenditure cannot be added to the manufacturer's assessable value unless it is shown to have been incurred at the instance of, or on behalf of, the manufacturer.

---