MRP-based valuation for pre-packed goods applies where post-sale tinting does not change the commodity's character.

Base paint sold in identifiable containers bearing MRP remained a pre-packed commodity for purposes of MRP-based valuation under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, because the Standards of Weights and Measures regime applied where retail sale price disclosure was required and the product was covered by the packaged commodities rules. Tinting at the dealer's premises in the consumer's presence, after selection of shade, did not alter the character of the goods or take them out of the pre-packed commodity framework. Valuation under section 4 was therefore unsustainable, and the related duty demand and penalties were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether base paint remained a pre-packed commodity liable to assessment under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, or whether its valuation had to be made under section 4 of that Act after tinting at the dealer's premises.

Analysis: Section 4A applies only where excisable goods are required under the Standards of Weights and Measures law to declare retail sale price on the package, and the scheme of Rule 5 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 regulates pre-packed commodities. The record showed that base paint continued to be packed in identifiable containers bearing MRP, was covered by the Government's order permitting non-standard packing for technical reasons, and was later specifically included in Schedule III to the Packaged Commodities Rules. The tinting activity at the dealer's premises, done in the consumer's presence after selection of shade, did not change the character of the product so as to take it out of the pre-packed commodity regime. The consumer purchased the base paint in packed form and received the same at the marked retail price, with colourant and mixing being ancillary to the sale.

Conclusion: Base paint was held to remain eligible for MRP-based assessment under section 4A, and valuation under section 4 was held unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The demand of differential duty, along with the related penalties, was set aside and the appeals succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A product remains assessable under section 4A where it is sold as a pre-packed commodity bearing MRP, and a post-sale tinting process at the dealer's premises does not, by itself, destroy its character as a packaged commodity for MRP-based valuation.

---