MRP-based excise valuation prevails for footwear supplies to institutional buyers absent proof that realisations exceeded MRP.

Footwear covered by the MRP-based valuation scheme under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 had to be assessed on the declared MRP, not on contract price merely because supplies were made to institutional buyers. The show cause notice referred to MRP marking and alleged additional collection, but there was no finding that total realisations from the sales exceeded the relevant MRP. In the absence of such a finding, valuation could not be shifted away from the statutory MRP mechanism. The demand based on contract price was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty on footwear covered by Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be demanded on the basis of contract price for supplies to institutional buyers instead of the MRP-based valuation adopted by the appellant.

Analysis: The footwear bore MRP markings and the goods were admittedly covered by Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for valuation. The show cause notice referred to MRP printing and alleged additional collection from institutional customers, but there was no allegation or finding that the total realizations from such sales exceeded the MRP for the relevant categories of footwear. In the absence of any such finding, the valuation could not be shifted to contract price.

Conclusion: The demand based on contract price was unsustainable. The assessee succeeded and the impugned orders were set aside.

Final Conclusion: Valuation under the MRP-based scheme could not be displaced by contract price merely because supplies were made to institutional buyers, where there was no finding that realizations exceeded the marked MRP.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are assessable under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, duty valuation must follow the MRP-based mechanism unless there is a finding that the actual realizations exceeded the declared MRP.

---