Tribunal rules against inclusion of advertising expenses in transaction value.

KITEC INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VAPI

KITEC INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VAPI - 2012 (279) E.L.T. 82 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:
Whether the advertisement expenses reimbursed by the appellant to distributors/dealers should be included in the transaction value of the final products.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged an Order-in-Appeal that confirmed demands on the appellant for not including the amount of advertisement expenses reimbursed to distributors/dealers in the assessable value for duty discharge. The appellant, a pipe manufacturer, reimbursed 50% of the advertisement charges to distributors/dealers during a specific period. The first appellate authority upheld the demands, prompting the appeal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the issue was settled and cited precedents to support the non-inclusion of dealer/showroom owners' advertisement expenses in assessable value. On the contrary, the departmental representative supported the lower authorities' findings, emphasizing that the transaction value should include advertising charges.

The Tribunal deliberated on whether the 50% of advertisement expenses reimbursed by the appellant to distributors/dealers should be part of the final products' transaction value. It was acknowledged that the appellant bore the remaining 50% of advertisement expenses, which was already included in the product cost for excise duty calculation.

Notably, the dealers voluntarily incurred sales promotion expenses for their benefit, without any evidence of coercion from the appellant. As such, reimbursing 50% of these expenses did not necessitate their inclusion in the transaction value, as they served the dealers' interests. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments supporting this interpretation.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.