Valuation under excise law turns on comparable goods, not brand names, when products are otherwise identical.

For valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, goods identical in type, quality and retail price are treated as "such goods" even if they bear different brand names. The valuation exercise turns on the statutory concept of comparable goods, not on commercial classification for trade purposes. Mere affixation of a brand name does not create a new assessable commodity in the absence of a statutory definition extending manufacture to such labelling. On that basis, the wholesale price of BSC-branded shoes was applicable to Bata-branded shoes, and the lower valuation adopted against the assessee was not sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether Bata-branded shoes and BSC-branded shoes, being the same type of goods sold at the same retail price and differing only by brand name, were to be treated as "such goods" for valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, and whether the wholesale price available for BSC shoes was applicable to Bata shoes.

Analysis: The valuation under Section 4 turns on the statutory concept of the price of "such goods" and not on commercial classification in the trade. The substitution of the expression "such" for the earlier phrase "like kind and quality" did not materially alter the scope of the provision. The goods in question were found to be the same in type, quality, and retail price, with the brand name serving only to identify the marketing channel and the manufacturer. Mere affixation of a brand name was held not to amount to manufacture of a new product in the absence of any statutory definition extending manufacture to such labelling for footwear. The commercial parlance criterion, though relevant in classification matters, was held inapplicable to the valuation exercise under Section 4. In the absence of evidence that the two brands were commercially treated as separate categories of goods, the lower authorities' view that they were different for valuation purposes was rejected.

Conclusion: Bata-branded shoes were held to be "such goods" as BSC-branded shoes for the purpose of Section 4, and the wholesale price available for BSC shoes was held applicable to Bata shoes. The valuation adopted against the assessee was therefore not sustained.

Final Conclusion: The dispute on valuation was resolved in favour of the assessee by holding that the same assessable value applied to both brands, and the appeal succeeded on the substantive issue decided.

Ratio Decidendi: For valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, goods differing only by brand name but otherwise identical in type, quality, and price are "such goods", and brand affixation alone does not create a distinct assessable commodity.

---