Assessable value cannot be based on a higher regional wholesale price charged to a different class of buyers.

Different buyer classes in separate regions could not be valued by reference to a higher wholesale price charged in U.P. State when determining the assessable value of goods sold to dealers outside U.P. State. The pricing for one regional class of buyers was not a permissible basis for valuing clearances to another class, so the approval of the price list was unsustainable. The consequential differential duty demand also lacked support and was liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the higher wholesale price charged to dealers in U.P. State could be adopted as the assessable value for goods sold to dealers outside U.P. State, and whether the consequential demand of differential duty was sustainable.

Analysis: The buyers in the two regions were treated as falling in different classes. The higher price charged to buyers in one region could not be used as the basis for valuing clearances made to buyers in another region. On that footing, the approval of the price list and the consequential duty demand could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The assessable value for sales to dealers outside U.P. State could not be determined on the basis of the higher price charged to dealers in U.P. State, and the impugned approval order and duty demand were liable to be set aside.

---