Assessable value excludes post-clearance trade promotion and retail advertising expenses; time-barred demand on sales promotion collections failed.

Post-clearance trade promotion expenses realised by merchant-manufacturers from dealers were not includible in the job worker's assessable value, because the processor's liability was confined to the valuation basis furnished for the processed goods cleared by it, and the addition was set aside. Advertisement expenses incurred by retail sellers on rejects or seconds were also not part of the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the processor, and that demand was rejected. The demand on the assessee's own sales promotion collections was time-barred, as the extended period was invoked for a 1984-1987 dispute only in 1989 without adequate justification. The valuation demands and consequential penalties were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sales promotion expenses collected by merchant-manufacturers from their dealers could be added to the assessable value of fabrics processed by the job worker and cleared on their behalf; (ii) Whether advertisement expenses incurred on retail sale of rejects/seconds could be added to the assessable value of the goods; (iii) Whether the demand relating to the assessee's own sales promotion collections was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether sales promotion expenses collected by merchant-manufacturers from their dealers could be added to the assessable value of fabrics processed by the job worker and cleared on their behalf.

Analysis: The liability of the processor is confined to valuation on the basis of the information furnished by the merchant-manufacturer for the processed goods cleared by the processor. Amounts realised by the merchant-manufacturer after clearance, towards its own trade or sales promotion, do not form part of the processor's assessable value. A merchant-manufacturer's post-clearance selling expenses and profit are not includible in the assessable value of the processed fabrics.

Conclusion: The addition of sales promotion collections made by merchant-manufacturers to the assessable value of goods cleared by the job worker was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether advertisement expenses incurred on retail sale of rejects/seconds could be added to the assessable value of the goods.

Analysis: The rejected fabrics belonged to both the processor and the merchant-manufacturers, and the advertisement expenditure was incurred by retail sellers in connection with their own retail disposal of rejects/seconds. Such downstream expenditure was not shown to be part of the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the job worker, and the demand was also inconsistent with the manner in which liability was sought to be apportioned in the notice.

Conclusion: The inclusion of advertisement expenses in the assessable value was not justified and was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand relating to the assessee's own sales promotion collections was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The disputed period was 1984 to 1987, whereas the show cause notice was issued in 1989. The issue of adding sales promotion expenses had already been the subject of earlier notices during part of the same period, and the extended period was invoked without adequate justification. The demand raised on this count was therefore time-barred.

Conclusion: The demand of duty on the assessee's own sales promotion collections was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The valuation demands and consequential penalties based on the impugned order could not be sustained, and the assessee succeeded in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Post-clearance trade promotion or advertising expenses incurred by distinct dealers or merchants are not includible in the processor's assessable value, and an extended-period demand cannot be sustained absent proper disclosure and justification for invoking limitation.

---