MRP-based valuation applies to repacked automobile parts, while extended limitation and penalty fail without suppression.

Clearances of repacked and relabelled automobile parts to depots remained assessable under section 4A because the packages were required to bear retail sale price under the applicable weights and measures regime, and registration of the depot as a manufacturing premises did not convert it into an industrial consumer. The extended period of limitation was unavailable because the department already knew the assessment method from records, returns, correspondence and scrutiny, so suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved. Penalty under section 11AC was therefore not leviable, and duty was confined to the normal period.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether clearances of repacked and relabelled automobile parts from the manufacturing unit to the assessee's depots attracted valuation under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) whether the demand for the extended period was sustainable; and (iii) whether penalty was imposable under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (i): whether clearances of repacked and relabelled automobile parts from the manufacturing unit to the assessee's depots attracted valuation under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The packages were required to bear retail sale price under the applicable weights and measures regime, and the goods cleared to the depots were not exempted from such declaration merely because the depots were registered manufacturing premises. Repacking and relabelling were treated only as deemed manufacture and could not be equated with actual production so as to bring the depots within the category of industrial consumer. The clearance to the depots therefore remained within the MRP-based valuation framework.

Conclusion: The clearances to the depots were correctly held to be assessable under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the demand for the extended period was sustainable.

Analysis: The department was already aware of the assessee's method of assessment from the statutory records, returns, correspondence, and departmental scrutiny. In these circumstances, suppression or wilful misstatement was not established, and the extended period could not be invoked. Only the demand relatable to the normal period could survive.

Conclusion: The demand beyond the normal limitation period was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether penalty was imposable under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: As the ingredients for invoking the extended period were not present, the foundation for penalty was absent. The record did not justify penal action under section 11AC.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not leviable.

Final Conclusion: The valuation dispute was answered against the assessee, but the extended-period demand was excluded and penalty was deleted, resulting in a partial relief with the matter remitted only for quantification of duty confined to the normal period.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods required to bear MRP are cleared in a condition attracting that statutory obligation, MRP-based valuation under section 4A applies notwithstanding that the recipient unit is registered as a manufacturing premises, and the extended period cannot be invoked without proof of suppression or wilful misstatement when the department already knew the relevant facts.

---