Cum-duty benefit under Section 4(1) was upheld where the post-2003 explanation governed the valuation scheme.

The Tribunal applied Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act read with its explanation, inserted in 2003, to hold that the respondent-assessee was entitled to cum-duty benefit. The challenge based on earlier decisions failed because those rulings did not consider the statutory explanation, and the entitlement was treated as arising from the statutory scheme rather than as a substantial question of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent-assessee was entitled to cum-duty benefit under the explanation to Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis: The Tribunal had granted cum-duty benefit after reading Section 4(1) together with its explanation, which was inserted in 2003. The challenge based on earlier judgments was not accepted because those decisions did not consider the said explanation. The finding on entitlement to cum-duty benefit was treated as a finding on the statutory scheme and not as giving rise to a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The respondent-assessee was held entitled to cum-duty benefit.

---