Factory gate sale price governs valuation where consignment-agent routing does not create a separate wholesale class.

A single departmental appeal against a common appellate order disposing of three separate matters was not maintainable. On valuation, differential discount routed through a consignment agent could not justify a higher assessable value where the bulk of production was sold at the factory gate to wholesale dealers at the approved discount. Because the sales outside Gujarat were not shown to involve a different class of buyers or a separate wholesale price structure, the factory gate sale price remained the proper basis for assessment. The duty demand raised on the differential discount was therefore unjustified, and the appellate order in favour of the assessee was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a single appeal was maintainable against a common appellate order disposing of three separate matters; (ii) whether the differential discount paid to the consignment agent could be added to the assessable value and duty demanded on that basis.

Issue (i): whether a single appeal was maintainable against a common appellate order disposing of three separate matters.

Analysis: The common order of the appellate authority had disposed of three appeals separately. The departmental challenge was brought as one appeal against that composite order.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability was accepted.

Issue (ii): whether the differential discount paid to the consignment agent could be added to the assessable value and duty demanded on that basis.

Analysis: Commission paid to an agent is not deductible from assessable value, but the factual setting here was different. The bulk of the production was sold at the factory gate to wholesale dealers at the approved discount, while sales in Gujarat were routed through a consignment agent who received 4% and passed the balance discount to dealers. The sales outside Gujarat were not shown to be to a different class of buyers so as to justify a separate wholesale price. The assessable value was therefore to be governed by the factory gate sale price available.

Conclusion: The duty demand on the differential discount was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The departmental challenge failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the appellate order in favour of the assessee was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where factory gate sales are made uniformly to wholesale dealers at an approved discount, a separate price structure cannot be justified merely because other clearances are routed through a consignment agent; the assessable value must follow the available factory gate sale price.

---