TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (1) TMI 232
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er-in-Appeal No. 426/2002-C.E., dated 11-7-2002. The Revenue had proceeded against the assessee to consider M/s. Murkumbi Manufacturing (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellants' or the 'assessee') and M/s. Murkumbi Bio-Agro Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as M/s. 'MBAPL' as short) are to be related persons. After due consideration, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum in Orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s beyond the scope of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant also submitted that even otherwise, the advertisement expenses incurred by M/s. MBAPL was also on their record and the same had not been incurred on behalf of the appellants. The learned Counsel relied on the ruling rendered by the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Escorts Ltd. [2002 (145) E.L.T. 312 (T)] wherein it has been held that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enses cannot be added to the assessable value. We find that in the light of the facts of the case, the finding arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the advertisement and promotional expenses incurred by M/s. MBAPL is required to be added in the assessable value is not a correct finding as both the units are held not to be related persons. There is no nexus in advertisement and promotional....