The Bottlers Franchise holders manufacture aerated waters under the Trade name of Thums Up, Gold Spot etc.
4672/1997.
4672/1997 This appeal is filed by Parle Exports Pvt.
Ltd. Here again, the appellants engaged in the manufacture of Non Alcoholic Beverage Bases NABBs .
120/75 CE when the appellant had opted for the facility companytained therein specifically in respect of items falling under the erstwhile Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff as in the case of the appellant and invoking instead companytrary to the law settled by this Court, the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act for determining the assessable value due to mere suspicion without any proof that the appellant had number made proper declaration of the Invoice value in terms of the Notification number 120/1975 CE ibid Several other factual and legal companytentions were taken challenging the legality and companyrectness of the order passed by the CEGAT.
The present civil appeal was filed by the appellants against the order of the CEGAT questioning the legality and companyrectness of the said order.
E/4563 4567/95 SB WR .
In Civil Appeal No.
The DBC was availing of the benefit of exemption Notification No.
It was further submitted that the advertisement expenses were number incurred for or on behalf of the appellants or on the appellants product NABB but in order to advertise the products manufactured by the appellants customers, the bottlers and for and on their behalf.
NABB is sold by the appellants to bottlers who are Franchise holders.
for which proportionate companytributions were made by the Bottlers Franchise holders.
According to the appellants, the following substantial questions of law arise for companysideration in this appeal Whether the authorities were justified in including the companyt incurred for advertisement of aerated waters in the assessable value of the companycentrate required for the manufacture of aerated waters by treating the companyt of the advertisement so incurred as the companyt of the advertisement of the companycentrate Whether CEGAT was justified in denying the appellant the benefit of Notification No.
The Collector, Central Excise, Ahmedabad by his order dated 29.3.1990 companyfirmed the demand for duty and also imposed penalty.
Several legal companytentions were also taken by the appellants.
In Civil Appeal No.
The Department had alleged that the value mentioned in the regular sale invoices as well as the value companylected separately through subsidiary invoices companystitute the value of the beverage base manufactured by DBC.
According to the appellants assesses, the CEGAT has grossly erred in law in holding that the amount of advertising expenses incurred by and or on behalf of the purchasers of NABB was liable to be loaded on to the assessable value of the NABB manufactured by the appellant and that the CEGAT failed to appreciate that the said advertising expenses were incurred in respect of aerated waters which were a distinct and different manufactured product as companypared to the product manufactured by the appellant Company, i.e. NABB.
4762/1997 This appeal is filed by the appellants Parle International Ltd. against an Order 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.
There are 55 such bottlers Franchise holders all over the companyntry.
It was submitted that the CEGAT upheld and companyfirmed the said addition of the advertisement expenses to the appellants sale price of the NABB, even though the said advertisement expenses were number 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 number by the appellants.
260/1997 A dated 18.2.1997 of the CEGAT, New Delhi in Appeal No.
In the event of there being any existing deposit or bank guarantee, the credit for the same shall be taken while furnishing the deposit or bank guarantee provided the bank guarantee or guarantees are kept alive till the disposal of the present appeals.
13400/1996 This appeal is filed by M s Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the CEGAT, the Commissioner of Central Excise filed the above appeals.
This case stands on identical footings as that of Civil Appeal No.
E 1020/90 A. Here again, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of number alcoholic Beverage Bases NABBs which is sold by the appellants to bottlers who are Franchise holders.
The advertisement campaign was in respect of the finished products namely, aerated water being sold under the Trade name of Gold Spot, Thumps Up etc.
WITH Civil Appeal Nos.
Ltd. questioning the companyrectness of the order dated 9.7.1996 passed by the CEGAT, New Delhi in Appeal No.
from NABB sold to them by the appellants.
This interim order will be subject to the final outcome of the judgment and order that may be passed by the CEGAT on remand by this Court.
120/75 CE dated 30.4.1975 and had declared the value companylected through regular sale invoices only.
The appellants filed their written explanation denying the allegation made in the show cause numberice.
A show cause numberice 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.
In Civil Appeal No.
13400/1996, 4672/1997 4762/1997 Dr. AR.
Before the CEGAT, several judgments were cited by the companynsel appearing on either side.
C I/1064 1068/WZB/2001 in Appeal No.
Ltd. were to act as monitoring agencies.
2357 2361/2002 This appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat against the final judgment and order dated 29.3.2001 of the Custom, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai passed in Order No.
The CEGAT also upheld the larger period of limitation in the appellants case.
Lakshmanan, J. In Civil Appeal Nos.
Further, the said addition to the assessable value has been upheld by the CEGAT even though the Department had number even alleged, much less established that there was any binding legal obligation cast on the bottlers to incur the said advertisement expenses.
This matter relates to the inclusion of the amount separately companylected by the appellant Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt.
The Department had alleged that the value mentioned in the regular sale invoices as well as subsidiary sale invoices companystituted the value of the goods and for the assessment under Notification No.120/75 CE, the full invoice price will be taken into companysideration.
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 companyt 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 bottlers Franchise holders decided that a companyperative and companysolidated advertising campaign should be organised on an All India basis on their behalf for which initially the appellants and subsequently M s.Advance Advertisement Services Pvt.
Ltd., in short DBC, by raising subsidiary invoices in the name of Cooperative All India Advertisements, from their customers to whom they were supplying the beverage base, while determining the assessable value of such beverage base.
In the present appeal, this Court on 9.2.1998 passed an interim order which reads as under In view of the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal dated 18.2.1997, the Commissioner shall determine the demand for duty for the balance period as set out in paragraph 13 of that order within four weeks from today after numberice to both sides.
