TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether footwear supplied in packages to industrial buyers, on which maximum retail price was required to be affixed and which was not covered by the exemption under the packaged commodities rules, was liable to valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 instead of Section 4 of that Act.
Analysis: The supply was not covered by the exemption for packages specially packed for the exclusive use of industry. Once the packages were required to bear the maximum retail price, the statutory scheme attracted Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The fact that the footwear was supplied in bulk to industrial buyers did not take the case out of Section 4A when the products were packed and marked with MRP and no exemption applied. The governing principle was consistent with the settled law that MRP-based valuation applies where the goods are specified under Section 4A and are required to bear retail price markings under the relevant legal metrology regime.
Conclusion: Valuation was correctly made under Section 4A and not under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944; the Revenue's challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The appellate order was upheld and the Revenue appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where packaged goods are required to bear MRP and are not exempt under the packaged commodities rules, valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies notwithstanding bulk supply to industrial purchasers.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
