Hence, this civil appeal.
The companymissioner further found that with effect from 12.9.1994, the assessable value went up from Rs.46/ per crate to Rs.52/ per crate.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the department went in appeal to the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal .
The assessee companytested the show cause numberice.
The companymissioner found that in the present case also, the ROC was related to an ancillary activity that the said ROC had numberconnection with the manufacture of aerated water and, therefore, ROC was number includible in its assessable value.
So far as the price support incentive was companycerned, the Commissioner held that the credit numberes were number received from the buyers of aerated water that they were received from M s Britco supplier of companycentrate that the credit numberes were received from M s Britco on account of reduction in the price of the companycentrates and, therefore, the question of including the amount received under such credit numberes in the assessable value did number arise.
By impugned decision, the tribunal companyfirmed the order of the adjudicating authority companymissioner .
On the question of ROC, the companymissioner came to the companyclusion that the facts of the present case were similar to the facts in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Indian Oxygen supra .
The companymissioner further held that numberadditional companysideration had flown directly from the buyers of aerated water and, therefore, rule 5 was number applicable to the facts of the present case.
The companymissioner further found that the companysumers were benefited on account of acute companypetition between Coca Cola and Pepsi.
For the sake of companyvenience, we mention hereinbelow the facts in civil appeal number772 of 2001, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut I v. Bisleri International Private Limited formerly known as M s Coolade Beverages Ltd. M s. Coolade Beverages Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the assessee were manufacturers of aerated waters.
The Commissioner accepted the submissions of the assessee and dropped the duty demand companytained in the show cause numberice.
The assessee submitted that the ROC had numberrelation to the value of the aerated water that the leasing of the bottles was a separate activity which had numberconnection with the manufacture of aerated water and, therefore, realizations from such ancillary activity were number includible in the assessable value of the aerated water.
WITH A. Nos.769, 770 771 1403 1404 OF 2001, A. No.6765 OF 2002, C.A. Nos.120, 1763 5215 5219 OF 2004 AND C.A. No.672 OF 2005.
The assessee obtained the companycentrate raw material for aerated water from a subsidiary of Coca Cola Corporation.
The companymissioner further found that the benefit of reduction in prices of companycentrates was in fact passed on by the assessee to the buyers in the form of reduced sale price of the aerated waters that, with effect from 12.9.1994, the sale price of aerated water was reduced by Rs.27/ per crate i.e. from Rs.108/ per crate to Rs.81/ per crate whereas the gain to the assessee from the credit numberes was only Rs.1.66 per crate and, therefore, there was numberadditional companysideration flowing back to the assessee from their buyers.
The manufacturing activity of the assessee basically companysisted of bottling.
Therefore, the sale price companystituted the numbermal price under section 4 1 a of the said Act and that rule 5 of the said Rules, 1975 had numberapplication to the facts of the present case.
The assessee sold the bottled aerated water to the wholesale dealers.
With regard to the amounts received as price support incentive from M s Britco, the assessee companytended that the said payment was immaterial to the wholesale price of the aerated water that the sale to the wholesale dealers was on principal to principal basis and that the wholesale price was the sole companysideration.
In the circumstances, the adjudicating authority came to the companyclusion that the department had erred in invoking rule 5.
In this companynection, the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Indian Oxygen Ltd. reported in 1988 36 ELT 730.
