TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (2) TMI 112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g under Chapter 87 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 18-10-1989, show cause notice was issued to M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as "the assessee") by the department demanding Rs. 4,73,690.76 for the period 1984-85 to 1988-89 by invoking extended period of limitation. In the show cause notice, it was alleged by the department that the assessee had failed to disclose and had failed to pay appropriate duty on the expenses incurred on its publicity/advertisement which in turn promoted the marketability of the goods. In the said notice, it was further alleged that the dealers' commission included the cost of selling the product, the cost of meeting the service obligations to the customers, the cost of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e incurred by the dealers on their own account and, therefore, such charges were not includible in the assessable value. It was further submitted that in any event, the goods in question have been sold to all the dealers at the same price and all the dealers were treated equally and, therefore, such charges were not includible in the assessable value. It was further submitted that the correct manner to assess excisable goods was to ascertain whether there was any allied activity or whether there was any implicated activity. It was contended that any profit accruing to the manufacturer in any allied activity cannot be subjected to levy of excise duty. It was urged that in the present case the assessee had given video cassettes to the dealers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice. 5.Aggrieved by the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the assessee preferred Appeal No. E/1125/94-A to the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as "the Tribunal"). By the impugned judgment and order dated 9-3-1999, which is a cryptic order, the Tribunal without discussing the evidence on record allowed the appeal on the ground that the matter was covered by the judgments of this Court in Philips India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune reported in [1997 (91) E.L.T. 540] and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in [1998 (103) E.L.T. 606]. Hence, this civil appeal by the department. 6.At the outset, we may ....