TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (4) TMI 81
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould be the price at which these two concerns sold them to their dealers. 2.The appeals filed by the assessee before the CEGAT were allowed and the impugned order of the Commissioner was set aside. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the CEGAT, the Commissioner of Central Excise filed the above appeals. 3.According to the appellants, the question which arises for the determination is as to whether the CEGAT was correct in not including the sales promotion expenses, (Advertising expenses) recovered by the manufacturer from its own dealers in respect of the goods sold to them, in the assessable value of the goods processed and sold by them from their factory. 4.A further question also arises for consideration to the effect that as to whether the CEGAT was correct in not appreciating the facts that all Merchant Manufacturers were created by main Mills i.e., M/s. Garden Silk Mills Ltd., and were created with a view to camouflage and avoid excise duty, as subsequently most of the (Merchant Manufacturers) were either dissolved or amalgamated with other companies. 5.It is pertinent to notice that the CEGAT, in the instant case, allowed the appeals of the Mills and Merchant Man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and, therefore, not exigible to excise duty. 9.Several other factual and legal contentions have also been taken in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. In Civil Appeal No. 13400/1996 : 10.This appeal is filed by M/s. Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. questioning the correctness of the order dated 9-7-1996 passed by the CEGAT, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/2751/84-A arising out of order in Appeal No. 68/84, dated 29-10-1984 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. This matter relates to the inclusion of the amount separately collected by the appellant - Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd., in short "DBC", by raising subsidiary invoices in the name of Co-operative All India Advertisements, from their customers to whom they were supplying the beverage base, while determining the assessable value of such beverage base. The Department had alleged that the value mentioned in the regular sale invoices as well as the value collected separately through subsidiary invoices constitute the value of the beverage base manufactured by DBC. The DBC was availing of the benefit of exemption Notification No. 120/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 and had declared the value collected thro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch proportionate contributions were made by the Bottlers/Franchise holders. A show cause notice was issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad to the appellants alleging that the amounts of the advertising expenses were includible in the assessable value of the NABB. The appellants filed their written explanation denying the allegation made in the show cause notice. The Collector, Central Excise, Ahmedabad by his order dated 29-3-1990 confirmed the demand for duty and also imposed penalty. The appellants preferred an appeal and the CEGAT by its order dated 18-2-1997 partly allowed the appeal of the appellants while holding that the cost of advertisement expenses in respect of finished products namely, aerated waters incurred by the bottlers/Franchise holders was liable to be included in the sale price of the appellants. The CEGAT also upheld the larger period of limitation in the appellant's case. 13.The present civil appeal was filed by the appellants against the order of the CEGAT questioning the legality and correctness of the said order. 14.Before the CEGAT, several judgments were cited by the counsel appearing on either side. Several legal contentions were also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said advertisement expenses were not incurred in respect of NABB at all but were incurred only in respect of aerated waters which are an entirely distinct and different manufactured product, which is produced by the bottlers and not by the appellants. Further, the said addition to the assessable value has been upheld by the CEGAT even though the Department had not even alleged, much less established that there was any binding legal obligation cast on the bottlers to incur the said advertisement expenses. 19.We heard Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned senior counsel, Mr. D.N. Mehta Mr. U.A. Rana, learned counsel, Mr. Joseph Vellapally and Mr. D.A. Dave, learned senior counsel and Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned counsel. Learned counsel for the respective parties reiterated before us the contentions raised by them in their respective appeals. We have perused the order passed by the CEGAT in Civil Appeal Nos. 2357-2361/2002 and the orders passed in other three appeals. In Civil Appeal Nos. 2357-2361/2002, the CEGAT passed the judgment and order against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee whereas a contrary view was taken by the CEGAT in the other three appeals holding in favour of the Reven....