https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372338 For stock-transferred goods cleared from the factory to depots, valuation was governed by the depot as the place of removal, but Section 4(1)(a) allowed different normal prices for different classes of buyers. Because the invoices identified contract sales at the factory gate with the customer name and contract price, and that same price was carried through to the depot sale, the contract sales constituted a distinct class of buyers. On those facts, the lower contract price was correctly adopted as the assessable value for the relevant clearances, and no differential duty arose on the basis urged by Revenue. en-us Wed, 19 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Dec 2018 06:50:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372338 For stock-transferred goods cleared from the factory to depots, valuation was governed by the depot as the place of removal, but Section 4(1)(a) allowed different normal prices for different classes of buyers. Because the invoices identified contract sales at the factory gate with the customer name and contract price, and that same price was carried through to the depot sale, the contract sales constituted a distinct class of buyers. On those facts, the lower contract price was correctly adopted as the assessable value for the relevant clearances, and no differential duty arose on the basis urged by Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372338