Appeal dismissed over exclusion of advertisement expenses from assessable value.

The department appealed against the exclusion of advertisement expenses from the assessable value of goods. The Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision based on established case law principles, noting the absence of a compulsory obligation for advertisement expenses and the mutual benefit derived from cost-sharing arrangements between the assessee and dealers. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the order pronounced on 13.11.06.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against order excluding advertisement expenses from assessable value of goods.

Summary:
The department appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order excluding advertisement expenses from the assessable value of goods. The Tribunal found that the issue of including advertisement charges in assessable value was already settled by Supreme Court judgments in cases like Philips India Ltd. v. CCE Pune and Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. CCE. The Revenue sought to distinguish the present case from Philips India Ltd. by arguing there was no agreement for advertisement reimbursement, but the Tribunal noted there was an arrangement for cost sharing between the assessee and dealers. It was established that the dealers would bear the advertisement cost initially and then issue debit notes to the assessee for reimbursement of 50% of the cost. Similar understanding was found in Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. case, where it was held that advertisement cost should be mandatorily incurred to be included in assessable value. Since the Revenue failed to prove this compulsion, and it was mutually beneficial for both parties, the Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision to exclude advertisement cost from assessable value.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and the operative part of the order was pronounced on 13.11.06.

---