Separate buyer classes for excise valuation defeated differential duty demand where distinct contracts and approved price lists existed.

Sales to MSRTC and ASRTU were treated as sales to separate classes of buyers for excise valuation because the assessee had filed two approved price lists under distinct contracts, received payment separately at the agreed contract rates, and the Department produced no material showing that the arrangements were one or that ASRTU supplied goods to its constituents at a uniform price. Mere membership of MSRTC in ASRTU did not collapse the two entities into a single buyer class, and the parity clause in the MSRTC contract had no counterpart in the ASRTU contract. The differential duty demand was therefore not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether sales to MSRTC and ASRTU constituted sales to the same class of buyers so as to justify adoption of a single price for excise valuation and demand of differential duty.

Analysis: The respondents had filed two separate price lists for two different buyers under two distinct agreements, and both lists had been approved. The evidence showed separate receipts of payment from the two buyers at the rates agreed under the respective contracts. Mere membership of MSRTC in ASRTU did not make the two entities indistinguishable for valuation purposes. The contract with MSRTC contained a parity clause, but no corresponding clause existed in the ASRTU contract. Proviso (i) to Section 4(1)(a) recognised the possibility of different classes of buyers and different prices, and the Department failed to show any material that the two contracts were treated as one or that ASRTU supplied goods to its constituents at a uniform price.

Conclusion: MSRTC and ASRTU were separate classes of buyers, and the differential duty demand was not sustainable.

---