2015 (9) TMI 1272 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court affirms MRP as sole consideration for excise goods valuation

Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Versus M/s. Himalaya Drug Company

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in a case concerning the valuation of excisable ... MRP based Valuation - Section 4A - Revenue was of the view that since the face wash gel is sold free along with dandruff shampoo, the value / price of face wash gel should also be included and raised demand in this behalf applying the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. - Held that:- Tribunal has observed that, 'Since the Revenue has not contested that the products in question are covered under Section 4A and Standards of Weights and Measures Act, we hold that the products are assessable under Section 4A. In view of the decided case laws, there will not be any duty liability on the gel supplied free, hence there is no merit in the impugned order.' - no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. - CESTAT has rightly decided the issue - Decided against Revenue. Issues: Valuation of excisable goods under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act.In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the dispute regarding the valuation of two products, namely Face Wash Gel and Dandruff Shampoo, which were bound together and sold as one product. The Revenue argued that the value of the face wash gel should be included since it was sold free along with the shampoo. However, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) mentioned on the product would be the sole consideration for valuation, as per Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. Section 4A specifies the valuation of excisable goods with reference to the retail sale price declared on the package, less any abatement notified by the Central Government. The Tribunal concluded that based on the provisions of Section 4A and relevant case laws, the value of the free gel should not be included in the assessable value of the product, leading to no duty liability on the gel supplied free. The Tribunal's decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal, affirming that the products were assessable under Section 4A and there was no merit in challenging the valuation method based on the MRP declared on the package. The judgment emphasized that the MRP declared on the product is the sole consideration for valuation under Section 4A, providing clarity on the excise duty payable on such bundled products.