MRP-based valuation for retail pouches applies despite secondary packs; Section 11D fails without actual duty collection.

Where individual retail pouches of branded chewing tobacco bore MRP and were intended for retail sale, the mere fact that they were placed in larger secondary packs did not take them out of Section 4A valuation; the goods remained liable to be assessed under the MRP-based regime rather than Section 4. The Tribunal also held that Section 11D could not be invoked because the differential duty was not actually collected from buyers, as credit notes had been issued and the amount was not retained for non-deposit. The valuation adopted by the lower appellate authority was therefore upheld, and the separate Section 11D demand failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether branded chewing tobacco packed in individual pouches of 8 gms and 9 gms, placed in secondary packs containing multiple pouches, was liable to valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under Section 4 of the said Act; (ii) Whether the demand confirmed under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether branded chewing tobacco packed in individual pouches of 8 gms and 9 gms, placed in secondary packs containing multiple pouches, was liable to valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under Section 4 of the said Act.

Analysis: The valuation controversy turned on whether the relevant unit was the individual pouch or the larger secondary pack. The record showed that each pouch carried its own MRP and each pouch was of less than 10 gms. The Tribunal treated the issue as no longer res integra and applied the settled position that, where the commodity is required to bear MRP at the level of the individual retail piece, the existence of a larger pack containing several such pieces does not by itself exclude the goods from the MRP-based regime. The Tribunal distinguished cases where the aggregate pack itself fell within the exemption threshold or where no MRP was intended for the larger package. On the facts found, the larger pack was also intended for retail sale and the statutory conditions for Section 4A were satisfied.

Conclusion: The goods were not required to be valued under Section 4 and were liable to valuation under Section 4A.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand confirmed under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 11D applies only where an assessee collects an amount representing duty from the buyer and does not deposit it to the Government. The Tribunal noted that although duty was reflected in invoices, the appellant had issued credit notes to customers and the differential amount was not actually collected. In those circumstances, the basic condition for invoking Section 11D was absent, and the demand could not survive on that ground.

Conclusion: The demand under Section 11D was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The valuation adopted by the lower appellate authority was upheld, and the revenue challenge failed in full, while the separate Section 11D demand was also found unsustainable on the facts.

Ratio Decidendi: Where individual sale pouches bear MRP and are intended for retail sale, the mere presence of a larger secondary pack does not displace Section 4A valuation; Section 11D applies only when duty collected from the buyer is actually retained and not deposited.

---