Export valuation under Section 4 applies where no legal MRP obligation exists; departmental appeal also failed for lack of proper authorisation.

Departmental appeals under Section 35E(2) require authorisation by the adjudicating authority; where the appeal was instead filed by the Assistant Commissioner (Review), it was treated as not maintainable. On valuation, goods exported to Bhutan were held assessable under Section 4 on transaction value, because Section 4A applies only when the manufacturer is legally obliged to declare MRP under the applicable law. Export consignments not subject to such MRP obligation cannot be brought under Section 4A merely because the goods are otherwise specified for domestic clearance. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable, with refund and consequential relief following.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the departmental appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was maintainable when authorisation under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not issued by the adjudicating authority. (ii) Whether goods exported to Bhutan were liable to valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on an MRP basis, or only under Section 4.

Issue (i): Whether the departmental appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was maintainable when authorisation under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not issued by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The authority to authorise filing of an appeal under Section 35E(2) must rest with the adjudicating authority. The appeal in question had been filed by the Assistant Commissioner (Review) and not by the original adjudicating authority. Applying the Larger Bench view relied on by the appellant, the departmental appeal suffered from a defect going to maintainability.

Conclusion: The departmental appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether goods exported to Bhutan were liable to valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on an MRP basis, or only under Section 4.

Analysis: Export goods are not subject to the domestic statutory requirement of affixing MRP merely because the goods may be specified under Section 4A. Section 4A applies only where there is a legal obligation to declare MRP under the governing law. The reasoning in the cited precedent held that export consignments are to be valued under transaction value under Section 4 and not under Section 4A, and the same principle applied here. The reliance placed on foreign packaging rules did not alter the domestic excise valuation scheme.

Conclusion: The exported goods were required to be valued under Section 4 and not under Section 4A.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to refund with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 4A applies only where the manufacturer is legally obliged to declare MRP under the applicable law, and export consignments not subject to such obligation are to be assessed under Section 4 on transaction value.

---