MRP-based valuation applies to footwear with sticker price labels, while exemption fails without indelible marking or embossing.

Footwear covered by the MRP-based valuation scheme remained assessable under section 4A where retail sale price particulars were shown through stickers, because sticker-based marking did not take the goods outside the statutory framework. The exemption under Notification No. 5/2006-CE was unavailable because the notification required the retail sale price to be indelibly marked or embossed on the footwear, and strict compliance with exemption conditions was not met on the record. On that footing, the extended period invocation and the consequential penalty were sustained, as the filings did not disclose the true nature of the marking.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether footwear cleared with retail sale price indicated by stickers, rather than indelible embossing or marking, was liable to assessment under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) whether the assessee was entitled to the concession under Notification No. 5/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and whether penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether footwear cleared with retail sale price indicated by stickers, rather than indelible embossing or marking, was liable to assessment under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: Footwear fell within the ambit of the MRP-based valuation scheme. The governing legal position required assessment under section 4A where the goods were covered by the relevant weights and measures regime and bore maximum retail price particulars. The argument that the goods were outside the scheme because of their supply pattern did not displace the statutory valuation framework. The use of stickers did not take the goods outside the coverage of the provision.

Conclusion: The goods were rightly held assessable under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (ii): whether the assessee was entitled to the concession under Notification No. 5/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and whether penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was sustainable.

Analysis: The notification required compliance with the condition that the retail sale price be indelibly marked or embossed on the footwear itself. The record showed only sticker-based indication of price, with no reliable evidence of embossing or indelible marking in the disputed clearances. As exemption notifications must be strictly complied with, the concession could not be extended. Since the return filings did not disclose the true nature of marking, invocation of the extended period and the consequential penalty were upheld.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the notification benefit, and the penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to a limited extent, while the principal demand and penal consequences were upheld on the footing that the goods attracted MRP-based valuation and did not satisfy the notification condition.

Ratio Decidendi: Where footwear is covered by the MRP valuation scheme, assessment under section 4A follows, and exemption contingent on indelible marking or embossing cannot be availed on the basis of sticker-only price indication.

---