2012 (9) TMI 673

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. - Revenue is in appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), who has set aside the adjudication order wherein while finalizing the provisional assessment, it was held that marketing, distribution and advertisement expenses are includible in the assessable value declared by the respondents. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earned Advocate for the respondent strongly supported the impugned order by relying on the decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. Cadbury India Ltd. reported in 2006 (200) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) and Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-IV v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. reported in 2009 (246) E.L.T. 390 (Tri.-Mumbai). He also submitted that the Revenue itself is relying on Board's Circular to a....