https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94627 Factory-gate sales to an industrial bulk buyer were treated as a distinct class of transactions, so the higher depot price could not be substituted for the actual transaction value under section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The mere non-filing of the supply agreement did not amount to deliberate suppression where price lists and returns had been filed and approved, so the extended period of limitation was unavailable. Penalty under section 11AC could not be applied retrospectively to a prior period, and no separate sustainable basis existed for penalty under rule 173Q. The departmental valuation, extended limitation, and penalties were therefore set aside. en-us Tue, 03 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:09:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94627 Factory-gate sales to an industrial bulk buyer were treated as a distinct class of transactions, so the higher depot price could not be substituted for the actual transaction value under section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The mere non-filing of the supply agreement did not amount to deliberate suppression where price lists and returns had been filed and approved, so the extended period of limitation was unavailable. Penalty under section 11AC could not be applied retrospectively to a prior period, and no separate sustainable basis existed for penalty under rule 173Q. The departmental valuation, extended limitation, and penalties were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94627