Full Judgment
3. It was the contention of the appellant that it had reduced the price in order to deal with the competition in the market. It had also mentioned factors such as poor off-takes, change in the technology, emergence of alternative product with alternate technology. The Asstt.
Commissioner has said that since the assessee did not indicate which of the factor motivated the reduction in price that reduction cannot be accepted. We are unable to endorse this logic. All these factors appear to us to be facets of the basic claim that there was competition in the market, and due evidently the presence of such similar products. The price of such product may be lower than the appellant's product because of such factor like adoption of more new technology. However, we do not see why the unsatisfactoriness of the reasons that the manufacturer advanced (assuming that to be the case) which resulted in the lowering of the price, should justify not accepting it. The assessable value under Section 4 was at the relevant time, the price at which the goods were sold in the course of the wholesale trade. Therefore, unless there was evidence in the hands of the department to indicate that the reduced price was not a genuine price, in that the goods were not being sold at this price and that there was additional consideration received by the manufacturer, that price would have to be accepted. The claim of substantial drop in sale, if unacceptable, could well be the starting point of investigation, and such investigation may result in it being established that there was in reality no reduction in price and the claimed reduction was only a facade to evade duty. In the absence of such a conclusion, the reduction in price is by itself insufficient to hold that value based on such reduced price is unacceptable. There was therefore no basis whatever for demanding the duty.