TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Overturns Decision, Upholds Price Variations based on Market Factors</h1> The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' decision, allowing the appeal and providing relief to the appellant. The judgment clarified the concept of ... Demand - Sale price - Commercial consideration Issues:- Difference in selling price to two wholesale buyers- Allegation of duty evasion- Challenge on the point of limitation- Imposition of personal penalty- Interpretation of different classes of buyers- Tribunal's decision in similar casesAnalysis:The judgment revolves around the appellant, engaged in the manufacture of 'Fresh Compressed Yeast,' facing a demand of duty due to selling the product at different prices to two wholesale buyers. The dispute arose as the appellant charged a lower price to one buyer within Maharashtra compared to another buyer outside Maharashtra. The authorities alleged duty evasion due to the relationship between the buyers and the same proprietor controlling both businesses. The appellant argued that the buyers catered to different markets, justifying the price difference to sustain local competition. The Additional Commissioner upheld the demand and imposed a penalty, which was reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) on appeal.During the hearing, the appellant reiterated that the buyers were independent and catered to distinct markets, emphasizing that the price difference was based on commercial considerations. The lower authorities cited a precedent but failed to consider the appellant's explanation for the price gap. The Tribunal referenced a similar case where different prices for the same product were deemed justifiable for different classes of buyers. The judgment emphasized that despite the same proprietor, the buyers were distinct classes, warranting varied pricing strategies. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the previous orders, allowing the appeal and providing relief to the appellant.In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the concept of different classes of buyers and upholds the appellant's practice of charging varied prices based on market considerations. It highlights the importance of commercial justifications for price differentials and sets a precedent for similar cases involving distinct buyer categories despite common ownership.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
