Page 268 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

250 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

2020 (373) E.L.T. 250 (Tri. - Del.)
IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. II]
S/Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) and C.J. Mathew, Member (T)
INDO RUBBER AND PLASTIC WORKS
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI
Final Order No. C/A/50240/2020-CU(DB), dated 13-2-2020 in Application No.
C/EH/50091/2020 in Appeal No. C/50017/2019
Valuation (Customs) - Costs and service - Addition of all other pay-
ments actually made or to be made as condition of sale of imported goods -
Nothing in agreement that fixed amount or fixed percentage of invoice value
of imported goods obliged to be spent by importer as a condition of sale or
import - Importer not obliged to incur any particular amount or percentage of
invoice value towards sales promotion/advertisement - Activity of advertise-
ment and sales promotion, a post-import activity incurred by importer on its
own account and not for discharge for any obligation of seller under terms of
sale - Parties not related to each other and importer not obliged to give any ac-
count of expenditure incurred by it to seller unless such expenditure incurred
at seller’s instance under stipulation of reimbursement - In accordance with
Interpretative Note to Rule 3(b) in Schedule of Customs Valuation (Determi-
nation of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 activity undertaken by buyer
on its own account, even though by agreement, are not considered as direct
payment, even though they might be regarded as benefit to seller also - De-
mand by including marketing expenses set aside - Section 14 of Customs Act,
1962 - Rules 3(b) and 10(1)(e) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of
Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. [2018 (364) E.L.T. 581 (Tribunal) distinguished]
[paras 16, 17]
Pre-deposit - Amount deposited during investigation - Takes/Taken
character of pre-deposit ipso facto - On success in appeal, appellant shall be
entitled to refund of said deposit with interest - Section 129E of Customs Act,
1962. [para 17]
Appeal allowed

CASES CITED
Commissioner v. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. — 2007 (213) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.) — Referred ...... [Para 13]
Richemont India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2016 (343) E.L.T. 209 (Tribunal) — Referred ...... [Para 13]
Reebok India Company v. Commissioner — 2018 (364) E.L.T. 581 (Tribunal)
— Distinguished .................................................................................................................. [Paras 15, 16]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Abhishek A. Rastogi, Pratyush P. Saha and
Ms. Rashmi Deshpande, Advocates, for the
Appellant.
Shri Sunil Kumar, Authorised Representative, for the
Respondent.
[Order per : Anil Choudhary, Member (J)]. - The appellant is a proprie-
tary concern engaged in the manufacture of sports goods under its own brand

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  268