In the case of Namrata Advertising Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik, it was held that creating infrastructure, displaying the advertisement and collecting rent for such display will not fall under the activity of advertising agency.
In the case of M/s SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation Vs. CCE, Raipur, it was held that merely because it had entered into four contracts for completing the scope of work would not take away from the fact that it was an operation of erection
It was held that a name or writing need not be a brand name or trade name in a sense it is normally understood. Even ordinary mark or letter is sufficient to indicate a connection between the product and the company.
It was held that that unless cost of advertising is recovered from the dealers mandatorily as a condition of dealership, the same cannot be added to the assessable value.
The appellants are manufacturer of excisable goods and were selling the products to various distributors and dealers. The appellants had agreement with some of the dealers and distributors in which they were sharing the cost of advertisement on optional basis.
In case of captive consumption, the valuation would be done under Rule 8 and if same goods are partly sold by the assessee then such goods should be assessed on the basis of transaction value and duty to be determined as per Section 4 for each removal.
It was held that when the assessee has provided the required documents for justifying that the incidence of tax has not been passed on, it is for the department to show by adducing some material that the incidence of tax has been passed on.
The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Vipul-S Plasticrafts P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise held that when the rule under which duty is sought to be demanded itself has been struck down as unconstitutional by various High Courts, the show-cause notice which are based upon rule 8(3A) cannot survive and are liable to be set aside.
for the purpose of classification of fertilisers, it is important to see where the products consists of nitrogen phosphorous and potassium as laid down in the explanatory notes, it should be classified as fertilizers.
In the case of Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi Vs M/S Bajaj Motors, it was held that the outdoor catering service provided has not been used for the personal use or consumption of the employee and the said service has been provided by the employer to its employees for preserving proper working atmosphere in the factory for enhancing the productivity.
