Appeal allowed due to disputed assessable value of supplied aerated water under contract. Commissioner's decision overturned.

The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant as the assessable value of aerated water supplied under contract was disputed. The Commissioner's decision to increase the assessable value by including advertising expenses of the other company was overturned as the goods were supplied under a contract price, and the relationship between the parties did not warrant such an increase. The impugned order was set aside, granting consequential relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Assessable value of aerated water supplied under contract.

Analysis:
The dispute in this case pertains to the assessable value of aerated water manufactured by the appellant and supplied to another company under contract. Initially, there was a disagreement regarding the price list, which was resolved in favor of the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a previous order. The Revenue claimed to have challenged this order before the Tribunal, but no record of the Tribunal setting it aside was found. However, the current appeal can be resolved independently of the earlier order.

The appellant is a franchise holder for manufacturing Maza drinks in Gujarat, excluding Surat, while another company, M/s Surat Bottling Company, is the franchisee for goods to be sold in Surat. The dispute revolves around goods manufactured by the appellant and supplied to M/s Surat Bottling Company under a contract price. The Commissioner (Appeals) increased the assessable value, arguing that advertising expenses incurred by M/s Surat Bottling Company should be added to the value due to their relationship as franchisees of the same holding company.

Upon examination, it was found that the goods were indeed supplied under a contract price, a fact not disputed by the Revenue. Therefore, there was no valid reason to enhance the assessable value by including advertising expenses of M/s Surat Bottling Company. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, granting consequential relief.

---