TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal dismisses department's appeal on charges reimbursed as advertising expenses</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT Versus SURAT BEVERAGES (P) LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT Versus SURAT BEVERAGES (P) LTD. - 2008 (232) E.L.T. 830 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:- Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding additional consideration received for advertising and sales promotion expenses.- Treatment of charges reimbursed by a subsidiary company as additional consideration.- Comparison of the case with previous decisions by CEGAT and Hon'ble Supreme Court.Analysis:1. The appeal involved a dispute over the treatment of a sum received as reimbursement for advertising and sales promotion expenses by the appellant, a soft drink manufacturer under an agreement with a subsidiary of Coca-Cola Company Ltd. The original authority demanded duty on this amount, which was contested by the appellant.2. The Departmental Representative argued that the charges reimbursed by the subsidiary company should be considered as additional consideration, relying on previous decisions by CEGAT. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the original authority's order, leading to the appeal.3. The advocate for the respondent cited cases involving similar issues, including decisions by the Hon'ble Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions from both sides and analyzed the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a related case.4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's findings emphasized the importance of determining whether the intrinsic price of aerated water exceeded the price charged to the buyer. It was noted that the appellant faced competition and received incentives from the supplier of concentrates, but there was no evidence of any additional consideration flowing back from buyers to the appellant.5. The Tribunal found that the appellant's case aligned with the principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, leading to the rejection of the department's appeal. The Tribunal distinguished the facts of the case from previous decisions cited by the Departmental Representative, thereby upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision.6. The judgment was pronounced on 27-8-2007 by the Tribunal, with the appeal by the department being rejected based on the analysis of the relevant legal principles and precedents.
TaxTMI 