Differential buyer pricing can support separate assessable values where industrial buyers and dealers form distinct classes.

Different prices shown for industrial buyers, wholesale dealers and dealers located at Delhi, Bangalore and Madras were treated as valid price classifications for assessable value purposes. The price lists were not uniform, and the buyers at each category and location were regarded as belonging to different classes. On that basis, the highest declared price could not be adopted as the assessable value, because the differential pricing was recognised as attributable to separate buyer classes rather than a single uniform market price.

---

---

Issues: Whether different prices declared for industrial buyers, wholesale dealers, and dealers at different geographical locations could be treated as prices for different classes of buyers for the purpose of determining assessable value.

Analysis: The prices shown in the price lists were not uniform. One classification was between industrial buyers and wholesale dealers. Another was between dealers situated at Delhi, Bangalore, and Madras. These distinctions were treated as valid classifications, and the industrial buyers and dealers at each geographical location were regarded as belonging to different classes.

Conclusion: The different prices could be recognised for different classes of buyers, and there was no ground to adopt the highest price as the assessable value. The appeal was dismissed, in favour of the assessee.

---