MRP-based excise valuation applies to packaged goods without industrial-use marking, while suppression is needed for extended limitation.

Goods cleared in standard packages bearing MRP remained assessable under section 4A because the relevant test was whether the packages were required to carry retail price declaration under the packaged commodity rules, not the identity of the eventual buyer. In the absence of any marking that they were meant for industrial use, the Rule 34 exclusion was unavailable, so valuation under section 4 was rejected. On limitation, declarations had disclosed section 4A assessment and there was no material of suppression or mala fide intent, so the extended period could not be sustained and the demand was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether goods cleared in packages bearing MRP, but sold in some cases to industrial consumers without any marking that they were meant for industrial use, were assessable under section 4A or section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invokable in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether goods cleared in packages bearing MRP, but sold in some cases to industrial consumers without any marking that they were meant for industrial use, were assessable under section 4A or section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The goods were manufactured in standard packages and MRP was affixed at the manufacturing stage. The determining factor was not the eventual buyer, but whether the packages were required to bear retail price declaration under the packaged commodity rules. Since the packages were not marked as meant for industrial use, the exemption from MRP declaration under Rule 34 was unavailable. The ratio applied was that bulk supply to institutional or industrial buyers does not by itself displace MRP-based valuation where the goods remain in packages required to bear MRP and are not specifically excluded by the packaging rules.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly assessed under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and not under section 4.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invokable in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The appellant had filed declarations showing assessment under section 4A and there was no indication that, at the time of manufacture, the appellant knew that the goods were meant for industrial consumers. In the absence of material showing suppression of facts or mala fide intent, the extended limitation could not be sustained. The demand was therefore time-barred.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on both valuation and limitation, and the impugned demand, interest, and penalty were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excisable goods are packed with MRP and are not marked as meant for industrial use, valuation remains governed by section 4A, and the extended period cannot be invoked absent suppression or mala fide intent.

---