2006 (6) TMI 40 - AT - Central Excise

Dispute over expense reimbursement resolved in favor of appellants emphasizing need for written agreements

AMCO BATTERIES LTD. Versus CCE, BANGALORE

The appellants challenged demands for reimbursement of expenses for advertisement and sale promotion, disputing the addition of 50% of expenses incurred ... Central Excise – Assessable value – Advertisement expenses - When advertisement expenses incurred by dealers and there was not any legal enforceable written agreement for reimbursement of advertisement expenses by the appellant, such expenses not to be added to the account of appellant Issues involved:1. Challenge to demands on appellants regarding reimbursement of expenses for advertisement and sale promotion.2. Interpretation of oral agreement between appellants and dealers regarding reimbursement.3. Application of legal precedents regarding the addition of expenses to assessable value.Analysis:Issue 1: Challenge to demands on appellantsThe revenue confirmed demands on the appellants in relation to 50% of reimbursement of expenses incurred by dealers on advertisement and sale promotion. The appellants contested this, arguing that they had already added the value of the reimbursement to the assessable value and paid the duty. However, they disputed the addition of the remaining 50% of expenses, which were incurred by the dealers themselves for their own purposes. The Commissioner disagreed with the appellants' contention, stating that the reimbursement indicated an oral agreement between the assessee and the dealers. The appellants challenged this decision, citing legal precedents such as the case of CCE Vs. Besta Cosmetics Ltd. and M&M Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bombay, to support their argument that there must be a written agreement with an enforceable legal right for such expenses to be added to the assessable value.Issue 2: Interpretation of oral agreementThe Commissioner concluded that there was an oral agreement between the appellants and dealers based on the reimbursement made to some dealers and the performance track record. However, the Appellate Tribunal disagreed with this finding, emphasizing the necessity of a written agreement with an enforcement clause to enforce the legal right to insist on advertisement under the agreement. Without such a written agreement, the expenses incurred by dealers on their own account cannot be added to the appellants' account. The Tribunal relied on legal precedents and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief if any.Issue 3: Application of legal precedentsThe Tribunal carefully considered the absence of a written agreement with an enforcement clause and the reliance on an oral agreement by the Commissioner. By following the ratio of cited judgments, including those in the cases of Featherlite Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE and Philips India Ltd. Vs. Collector, the Tribunal determined that the expenses incurred by dealers on their own account cannot be added to the assessable value without a written agreement with an enforceable legal right. The Tribunal's decision was based on the application of legal principles established in previous judgments, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.The judgment emphasizes the importance of a written agreement with an enforcement clause for expenses to be added to the assessable value, highlighting the significance of legal precedents in determining such matters.