MRP-based excise valuation applies to retail-sold packaged goods, and extended limitation fails without suppression.

Packaged goods sold through stockists and retail outlets carrying MRP are assessable under Section 4A, because the industrial or institutional consumer exclusion applies only where such commodities are directly purchased from the manufacturer for that use. The limitation objection also fails where the assessee's valuation practice is disclosed in returns, supported by records, and earlier audits raised no objection, since suppression or mala fide cannot be inferred and the extended period under Section 11A is not invocable. The demand was therefore held time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether duty on the goods was correctly assessable under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the basis of MRP despite the Revenue's plea that the goods were meant for industrial or institutional consumers; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether duty on the goods was correctly assessable under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the basis of MRP despite the Revenue's plea that the goods were meant for industrial or institutional consumers.

Analysis: The goods were admittedly packed and sold through distributive channels and retail outlets, and the packages carried MRP. The exclusion from MRP-based valuation for industrial or institutional consumers applies where packaged commodities are directly purchased from the manufacturer for use by that industry or institution. Once the goods are displayed for sale through stockists or retail outlets, the MRP provisions apply.

Conclusion: The valuation under Section 4A was applicable, and the Revenue's objection on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked.

Analysis: The appellant had filed returns and its valuation practice was within the knowledge of the Revenue. Earlier audits had been conducted without objection, and the records were available in the ordinary course of business. In these circumstances, no mala fide or suppression could be attributed to the appellant so as to justify the extended period. The notice was also issued long after the audit had disclosed the facts, making the demand time-barred.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable, and the demand was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where packaged goods are sold through stockists or retail outlets and carry MRP, Section 4A valuation applies despite a claimed industrial or institutional use exception, and the extended limitation period cannot be invoked absent suppression or mala fide when the valuation practice was disclosed to the Revenue.

---