Packaged commodities exemption and excise valuation under Section 4A require clear findings on package declarations and retail sale price rules.

Packaged goods marked with a printed net weight of 2 gms and the words "not for sale" were examined against the exemption in Rule 34(b) of the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The text states that these declarations were material to determining whether the packages fell within the exemption for packages of 10 gms or less sold by weight or measure, and whether excise valuation should proceed under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It notes that where no statutory retail sale price declaration is required, valuation may lie under Section 4, and that packages governed by the packaged commodities rules are outside Section 4A. The matter was remitted for fresh factual and legal consideration of Rule 34(b).

---

---

Issues: Whether packaged goods bearing the printed net weight of 2 gms and the words "not for sale" were covered by the exemption in Rule 34(b) of the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, and whether the goods were assessable under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The printed weight on each packet and the words "not for sale" were material indicators for deciding whether the goods fell within the exemption for packages of 10 gms or less sold by weight or measure. The appellate authority had not recorded a clear finding on why the exemption did not apply. The Board's circular and the cited Supreme Court decisions indicated that where there is no statutory requirement to declare retail sale price, valuation may proceed under Section 4, and that packages governed by the relevant packaged commodities rules are outside Section 4A. The matter therefore required reconsideration on the factual and legal application of Rule 34(b).

Conclusion: The finding on applicability of Rule 34(b) and the consequent valuation under Section 4A could not be sustained without a clear factual determination, and the issue was remitted for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was sent back for reconsideration on the applicability of the exemption and the correct mode of excise valuation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the applicability of a packaged-commodity exemption turns on the printed declaration on the package and the lower authority records no clear finding on those facts, the proper course is to re-examine the matter before deciding whether valuation lies under Section 4 or Section 4A.

---