Retail sale price declaration by affixed sticker can satisfy Section 4A and override an earlier printed MRP.

For valuation under Section 4A, retail sale price may be declared either on the package itself or by a label securely affixed to it under Rule 6 of the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. A revised MRP shown by an affixed sticker can supersede the earlier printed price, so the package is not treated as carrying two operative retail sale prices merely because the original print remains visible. Where verification does not establish a false invoiced MRP or insecure affixation of labels, the basis for invoking Explanation 2 to Section 4A is absent, and the duty demand and penalty are unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether affixing stickers showing revised retail sale price on cartons satisfied the statutory requirement of declaration of retail sale price for valuation under Section 4A; (ii) Whether the duty demand and penalty could be sustained on the basis that the cartons carried more than one retail sale price or that labels were not securely affixed.

Issue (i): Whether affixing stickers showing revised retail sale price on cartons satisfied the statutory requirement of declaration of retail sale price for valuation under Section 4A.

Analysis: Section 4A required valuation on the retail sale price declared on the goods. Rule 6 of the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 permitted declaration either on the package itself or on a label securely affixed thereto. The revised MRP was shown by stickers affixed over the earlier printed price, and the revised declaration superseded the original printed MRP. Printing of the price on the package was not the only legally permissible method of declaration.

Conclusion: The sticker-based declaration satisfied the statutory requirement and the contrary view was in law.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand and penalty could be sustained on the basis that the cartons carried more than one retail sale price or that labels were not securely affixed.

Analysis: The earlier printed price represented the price prevalent when the cartons were originally printed, while the sticker reflected the revised MRP. In that situation, the cartons could not be treated as declaring two operative retail sale prices. The evidence collected during verification did not support a finding that the invoiced MRP was false or that the labels were not securely affixed, particularly when only a very small number of cartons were found with old labels in the trade chain. The factual basis for invoking Explanation 2 to Section 4A was therefore absent.

Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The valuation adopted by the assessee was held to be in accordance with law, and the demand, interest and penalty were set aside with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: For goods assessed under Section 4A, retail sale price may validly be declared by a label securely affixed on the package, and an earlier printed MRP overwritten by a revised sticker does not amount to multiple declared retail sale prices.

---