Factory gate valuation and no suppression bar extended limitation where regional office sales followed genuine pricing.

Where a genuine factory gate price existed for refrigerators stock-transferred to area sales offices, excise valuation had to proceed under section 4(1)(a) on that price, and later depot or regional office sale prices could not be adopted merely because the goods were sold through those offices. Post-removal expenses such as freight and insurance did not displace the factory gate price, and the proviso for different classes of buyers was inapplicable. On limitation, departmental knowledge of the marketing pattern and prior disclosure of the valuation method meant suppression was not established, so the extended period could not be invoked. The demand and penalty were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the factory gate price could be adopted as the assessable value for refrigerators stock transferred to area sales offices and sold through those offices; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the factory gate price could be adopted as the assessable value for refrigerators stock transferred to area sales offices and sold through those offices.

Analysis: The availability of a genuine factory gate price meant that valuation had to proceed under section 4(1)(a). The proviso for different classes of buyers was inapplicable because sales from area sales offices were not sales at the place of removal, and the depot expenses, freight, insurance, and similar post-removal charges did not alter the existence of a factory gate price. The commercial reasons for selling through regional offices did not create separate classes of buyers for excise valuation. The Board's circular also supported adoption of the factory gate price where the price was genuine.

Conclusion: The factory gate price was rightly applicable, and the higher depot sale price could not form the assessable value. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The record showed that the Department had long been aware of the appellant's marketing pattern, including the use of regional offices and the pricing structure. The prior correspondence and earlier appellate orders indicated disclosure of the relevant facts, and the valuation method adopted by the assessee was consistent with the legal position and the Board's clarification. In these circumstances, the ingredients required for alleging suppression were not established.

Conclusion: The extended period was not available to the Revenue. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand and penalty could not be sustained, and the assessee was entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a genuine factory gate price exists, excise valuation must be based on that price and depot or regional office sales do not attract the proviso for different classes of buyers merely because the goods are later sold through regional depots; in the absence of suppression, the extended limitation period cannot be invoked.

---