Section 4A valuation must follow package MRP; Rule 173C(2A) cannot override the statutory retail price basis.

For goods covered by Section 4A, assessable value is mandatorily based on the retail sale price declared on the package, after permitted abatement, notwithstanding the general valuation rule under Section 4. A declaration in Rule 173C(2A) functions only as an intimation mechanism and cannot alter or override the statutory valuation basis. The reasoning follows the Karnataka High Court view that the package MRP, not the declaration form, governs valuation. Where duty is paid on the declared MRP basis, no short-levy arises and a demand adopting a different valuation method is unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether excisable goods specified under Section 4A were to be valued on the retail sale price declared on the packages, and whether a declaration under Rule 173C(2A) could alter that valuation basis.

Analysis: Section 4A(2) deems the assessable value to be the retail sale price declared on the goods, less admissible abatement, notwithstanding Section 4. The declaration format under Rule 173C(2A) is only an intimation mechanism and cannot control or vary the statutory valuation rule. The reasoning adopted from the Karnataka High Court makes clear that the retail sale price appearing on the package, and not the declaration form, governs valuation under Section 4A. Where duty is discharged on that declared MRP basis, no short-levy arises.

Conclusion: The demand based on a different valuation basis was unsustainable and was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For goods covered by Section 4A, the assessable value is mandatorily the retail sale price declared on the package less permitted abatement, and a declaration under Rule 173C(2A) cannot override that statutory basis of valuation.

---