Ayurvedic medicament classification and Section 4A valuation upheld where MRP-declared goods were supplied through hotels.

Products previously held to be Ayurvedic medicaments remained classified under Heading 30.03, as the earlier Tribunal ruling in the assessee's own case continued to govern and no stay of that order was shown. Goods supplied to hotels were also valued under Section 4A because they were notified goods required to bear retail sale price declarations; the hotel supply channel did not displace the statutory valuation, and the Rule 34 exclusion was not proved on the facts. The impugned orders were sustained and the Revenue's appeals failed on both classification and valuation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the products manufactured by the assessee were classifiable as Ayurvedic medicaments under Heading 30.03 or under Chapter 33. (ii) Whether the assessable value of goods supplied to hotels was required to be determined under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether the products manufactured by the assessee were classifiable as Ayurvedic medicaments under Heading 30.03 or under Chapter 33.

Analysis: The classification dispute had already been decided in the assessee's own case and that decision had been followed by the Commissioner (Appeals). No stay of that earlier Tribunal order was shown. The existing classification ruling therefore governed the present appeals.

Conclusion: The classification of the products as Ayurvedic medicaments was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessable value of goods supplied to hotels was required to be determined under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The goods were specified under Section 4A(1) and were subject to the packaged commodities regime requiring declaration of sale price. The fact that some packs were supplied to hotels did not displace the statutory valuation under Section 4A, because the goods bore MRP and were distributed to consumers through the hotels. The exclusion in Rule 34(1)(a) was not established on the facts, as there was no material showing that the packages were specially packed exclusively for servicing an industry or for use as raw material. The Tribunal also distinguished the authorities relied on by Revenue.

Conclusion: Valuation under Section 4A was held applicable and Revenue's challenge was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were sustained and the Revenue's appeals failed on both classification and valuation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excisable goods are notified under Section 4A and are required to carry retail sale price declarations, valuation is governed by Section 4A notwithstanding Section 4, unless the statutory exclusion under the packaged commodities rules is clearly established.

---