Excise valuation must follow bona fide regional sale prices where no evidence shows favoured or artificially depressed pricing.

Bona fide regional price differences were accepted as commercial prices for excise valuation, because there was no evidence that the lower prices were favoured or artificially depressed. Each price charged to the relevant class of buyers was therefore required to be treated as the assessable value, and valuation based on the highest ex-factory price was unsustainable. On that footing, the duty demand and penalty could not be maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether different sale prices charged to buyers at different geographical locations, being commercial prices, could each be accepted as the assessable value for excise valuation, and whether the duty demand and penalty based on adoption of the highest ex-factory price were sustainable.

Analysis: The price variation was explained as arising from regional differences. There was no evidence that the lower prices were not commercial prices, nor any material to show that depressed or favoured prices had been adopted in the accounts. In the absence of such evidence, each price charged to the relevant class of buyers was required to be treated as the assessable value. The demand was founded on a valuation approach contrary to that principle.

Conclusion: The different regional prices were to be accepted for assessment, and the duty demand as well as the penalty were not legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where multiple sale prices are bona fide commercial prices reflecting regional market conditions and there is no evidence of favoured or artificially depressed pricing, each price constitutes the assessable value for excise purposes.

---