2000 (5) TMI 223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "And whereas during the scrutiny of the balance sheet for the financial year 31-3-1994 it has been observed that the expenses incurred on commission paid to the Agents, advertisements, publicity and replacement of rejected goods within warranty period which should have been included in the assessable value under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and are liable to pay duty have not been included in the assessable value of goods as manufactured by the party." Commissioner then issued a corrigendum, dated 12-6-1997 requiring the manufacturer to show cause to the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur, for purposes of adjudicating the issue raised in the earlier show cause notice. 2. In reply to the show cause notice,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the goods manufactured were sold to dealers at a price agreed to between the parties. Out of that price, no amount was deducted under any head. Since the Department has not proved or even alleged any flowback from the buyer to the manufacturer, no differential duty could have been claimed. It is also his contention that no penalty as provided by Section 11AC could have been imposed on the manufacturer in relation to transactions which took place prior to 28-9-1996 on which day Section 11AC was brought into the Statute Book. He also relied on the decision of a Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 33 (Tribunal) for the proposition that advertising expens....