https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89957 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. en-us Mon, 11 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Oct 2011 14:32:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89957 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89957