Regional pricing under excise valuation was permissible where lower prices reflected market competition, not undervaluation.

Differential pricing for clearances to a particular region was treated as permissible under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 where the buyers formed a distinct class and the lower price was adopted on commercial grounds to meet competitive market conditions. Although the goods sold under different trade names were the same product, the regional price variation and corresponding change in nomenclature did not, by themselves, establish undervaluation or any extraneous basis for valuation. On that reasoning, the differential duty demand was unsustainable, and the connected confiscation and penalties based on that demand could not be maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the differential pricing adopted for clearances to the Ulhasnagar region amounted to undervaluation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the consequential duty demand, confiscation and penalties could be sustained.

Analysis: The goods sold under the different trade names were found to be the same product, but the price variation was confined to clearances made to a particular region facing competitive market conditions. The record showed that buyers in that region constituted a distinct class, that comparable prices were charged by competitors, and that the lower price was adopted on commercial grounds to meet market competition. In such circumstances, regional pricing was held to be permissible under Section 4, and the mere change in nomenclature to reflect the lower price did not establish undervaluation or any extraneous or irrational basis for the valuation adopted.

Conclusion: The demand of differential duty was unsustainable, and the confiscation as well as the penalties based on that demand were liable to be set aside.

---