1992 (9) TMI 373

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 to 21.11.1990 is barred by limitation. iii) whether any penalty is warranted. The appellants manufacture TV game consoles and video game cartridges falling under sub-heading 9504.00 of the Tariff and during the relevant period were availing of SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE and for this reason, they had been granted the facility of invoice value assessment in terms of Rule 173C(11) which permits an assessee to determine the duty payable on the goods intended to be removed on the oasis of the price of the goods as declared in the gate pass or accompanying challan or invoice, subject to the condition that the price as declared thereon must conform to the requirement of Section 4 CESA, 1944 (If this price does not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he meeting we had this morning in your office in response to your summons dt. 5/9.7.1991. The position was explained that:-- 1. We do not have any written contract or agreement with our stockists; 2. Those of our stockists who wish to make local publicity in regional papers, we allow them to do so and reimburse 50% of the local publicity bill. Those who do not make local publicity, there is no compulsion on them; 3. There is no deduction in assessable value to those who do local publicity vis-à-vis those who do not do. Both are at par and the same assessable value is charged in both the cases; 4. 50% local publicity charges are reimbursed provided they produce voucher copy and paper's bill upon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icity of their products and 50% of such expenses would be reimbursed to them. The case law relied upon by the adjudicating authority i.e. the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of C.C.E., Bangalore v. R. Gas Electrodes (P) Ltd. [1988 (33) ELT 485 : 1987 (13) ECR 1067 (Cegat SB-A)] and HPF Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore [1988 (35) ELT 354 : 1988 (17) ECR 102 (Cegat SB-A)] are applicable to the facts of this case. Shri Gujral's reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lili Foam Industries (P) Ltd. v. CCE [1990 (46) ELT 462 : 1990 (27) ECR 246 (Cegat SB-Q)] is misplaced as in that case, what was held to be not includible in assessable value was interest on advances, and not advertising expenses which have been held to ....