Section 4 valuation applies to defence-supply coffee without retail price marking; extended limitation fails absent suppression.

Instant coffee supplied in bulk to the Indian Army and ITBP for rationing purposes, without a statutory requirement to declare retail sale price on the package, was held assessable under Section 4 rather than Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The packaging was for defence-service supply and not retail sale to an ultimate consumer, so the precondition for Section 4A did not arise. On limitation, prior departmental knowledge of the clearances and disclosure by the assessee meant suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not established, and the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A could not be invoked. The duty demand for the relevant period was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether instant coffee supplied in bulk to the Indian Army and ITBP, without printing retail sale price, was assessable under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under Section 4 of that Act. (ii) Whether the demand for differential duty was barred by limitation and the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether instant coffee supplied in bulk to the Indian Army and ITBP, without printing retail sale price, was assessable under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under Section 4 of that Act.

Analysis: Section 4A applies only where the goods are specified and the manufacturer is legally required to declare retail sale price on the package under the relevant weights and measures law. The goods in question were marked for defence services only and were supplied to the Army and ITBP for rationing purposes, not for retail sale to an ultimate consumer. On that factual basis, the requirement to print retail sale price was not attracted. The decision in Jayanthi Food Processing was applied to hold that the nature of sale is not decisive, but Section 4A still depends on the statutory obligation to declare retail sale price on the package.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly assessable under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 4A did not apply.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for differential duty was barred by limitation and the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked.

Analysis: The Department had prior knowledge of the supplies and the assessee had informed it about the nature of the clearances. In these circumstances, suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not made out, and the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The demand for the earlier part of the period was therefore held unsustainable on limitation as well.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred for the relevant period and the extended period under Section 11A could not be applied.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, as the valuation adopted by the assessee was upheld and the duty demand was not sustainable on the facts and the law.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 4A applies only when the goods are required by law to bear a retail sale price on the package; where the supplies are made for non-retail institutional use without such statutory obligation, valuation falls under Section 4.

---