Factory gate price controls excise valuation; depot sale prices cannot displace it when the approved price is genuine.

An approved factory gate wholesale price, where genuine and not shown to be artificial or unreliable, must be used as the normal assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; depot sale prices cannot replace that ex-factory price merely because the goods are later sold through depots. The document also states that prior departmental queries on valuation and the assessee's replies negate suppression of facts, so extended limitation and related penalties are not justified when no separate basis for evasion is established. It further notes that consequential penalties fail where the underlying valuation demand does not survive.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessable value of V-belts sold through depots could be revised on the basis of depot sale prices when an approved factory gate wholesale price was already available; (ii) whether suppression of facts justified the demand, penalties, and invocation of the longer period of limitation.

Issue (i): whether the assessable value of V-belts sold through depots could be revised on the basis of depot sale prices when an approved factory gate wholesale price was already available.

Analysis: The approved factory gate price was not disputed by the Department, and once such ex-factory wholesale price was ascertainable, it constituted the normal price for assessment under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The character of depot sales as retail or wholesale did not justify adoption of a different assessable value when the factory gate price was genuine and the difference between the two prices was marginal. The reasoning was reinforced by the principle that valuation must be based on the price at the time and place of removal, and that ex-depot pricing cannot displace an available ex-factory price.

Conclusion: The assessable value could not be revised on the basis of depot sale prices, and the factory gate price had to be adopted for assessment.

Issue (ii): whether suppression of facts justified the demand, penalties, and invocation of the longer period of limitation.

Analysis: The issue of valuation had been raised by the Department from an earlier period and the assessee had been responding to those queries, which negatived any finding of suppression. The establishment of depots and sales through them did not by itself show a device to evade duty, and the facts did not establish a separate class of buyers or any legally sustainable basis for invoking extended limitation. As the valuation demand itself could not stand, the penalties imposed on the company officers also lacked foundation.

Conclusion: Suppression was not established, the longer period of limitation was not justified, and the penalties were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the valuation orders were set aside, and the consequential penalties were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an approved factory gate wholesale price is available and not shown to be artificial or unreliable, assessment must be based on that normal price under Section 4, and depot sale prices cannot be substituted merely because the goods are subsequently sold through depots.

---