https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123509 Differential pricing for clearances to a particular region was treated as permissible under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 where the buyers formed a distinct class and the lower price was adopted on commercial grounds to meet competitive market conditions. Although the goods sold under different trade names were the same product, the regional price variation and corresponding change in nomenclature did not, by themselves, establish undervaluation or any extraneous basis for valuation. On that reasoning, the differential duty demand was unsustainable, and the connected confiscation and penalties based on that demand could not be maintained. en-us Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:20:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123509 Differential pricing for clearances to a particular region was treated as permissible under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 where the buyers formed a distinct class and the lower price was adopted on commercial grounds to meet competitive market conditions. Although the goods sold under different trade names were the same product, the regional price variation and corresponding change in nomenclature did not, by themselves, establish undervaluation or any extraneous basis for valuation. On that reasoning, the differential duty demand was unsustainable, and the connected confiscation and penalties based on that demand could not be maintained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123509