Valuation of goods sent to selling agents must follow factory-gate price; concealment supports extended limitation and penalty.

Goods transferred to selling agents were not sales to a distinct class of buyers because no sale existed at the time of removal and the eventual buyers were unidentified; valuation therefore had to follow the normal factory-gate price already approved, not the transfer invoice or later resale price. The true nature of the clearances was also withheld in the price list, amounting to suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty; extended limitation and penalty were therefore sustainable. The duty demand, extended period, and penalty were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether clearances to selling agents could be treated as sales to a distinct class of buyers so as to adopt the transfer invoices or later resale price for assessment, and (ii) whether suppression of the true nature of clearances justified invocation of the extended period and penalty.

Issue (i): Whether clearances to selling agents could be treated as sales to a distinct class of buyers so as to adopt the transfer invoices or later resale price for assessment.

Analysis: The goods were sent from the factory to selling agents, and at the point of removal the identity of the eventual buyers was not known. Since there was no sale between the manufacturer and the selling agents, the price shown in the transfer invoice or in the subsequent resale by the agents could not govern valuation. The principle applicable to sales to a known class of buyers did not apply because the agents were not buyers. The normal price already approved for general sales at the factory gate therefore governed assessment.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether suppression of the true nature of clearances justified invocation of the extended period and penalty.

Analysis: The Part-II price list showed the names of the purported industrial consumers, but the goods were actually transferred to selling agents, and that true position was not disclosed. This amounted to suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. On those facts, the longer limitation period was available and the penalty was sustainable.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full, and the duty demand, extended limitation, and penalty were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are transferred to selling agents and no sale exists at the time of removal, assessable value must be based on the normal price at removal; concealment of the true nature of such clearances amounts to suppression justifying extended limitation and penalty.

---