MRP-based excise valuation applies to bulk institutional sales when goods are properly marked, with limitation and penalty unavailable absent suppression.

Compact fluorescent lamps sold in bulk to institutional buyers remained assessable under section 4A of the Central Excise Act when they were cleared with MRP affixed and otherwise fell within the MRP-based valuation regime; bulk sale or institutional supply did not, by itself, exclude section 4A. The packaged commodities rules and Rule 34 exemption principle did not alter that position on these facts. The text also states that, absent suppression of material facts or contumacious conduct, the extended period of limitation and consequential penalty were not available. The stated result was that valuation under section 4, extension of limitation, and penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether compact fluorescent lamps sold in bulk to institutional buyers, but marked with MRP, were assessable under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under section 4 thereof; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation and penalty could be sustained in the absence of suppression or contumacious conduct.

Issue (i): Whether compact fluorescent lamps sold in bulk to institutional buyers, but marked with MRP, were assessable under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under section 4 thereof.

Analysis: The goods were admittedly of a kind specified for MRP-based assessment and were cleared with MRP affixed. The mere fact that the buyers were institutions or that the goods were purchased in bulk did not, by itself, take the clearances outside the scope of section 4A. The applicable packaged commodities regime and the exemption principle under Rule 34 did not assist the Revenue on these facts. The issue was treated as covered by the binding precedent relied upon, and the lower appellate finding was found to rest on a factual mistake.

Conclusion: The clearances were liable to be assessed under section 4A and not under section 4.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation and penalty could be sustained in the absence of suppression or contumacious conduct.

Analysis: The record did not disclose any suppression of material facts or deliberate evasion. Since the relevant clearances were made with MRP marking and the dispute turned on the proper valuation provision, the extraordinary period of limitation was not available to the Revenue, and the penalty could not survive on the same footing.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation and consequential penalty were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained on the valuation adopted by the lower authorities, and the assessee was entitled to relief with the impugned order set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are mandatorily MRP-marked and otherwise fall within the section 4A regime, bulk sale to institutional buyers does not by itself exclude MRP-based valuation, and limitation cannot be extended absent suppression or contumacious conduct.

---