Multiple retail sale prices on one package require valuation at the highest declared price; penalty was not sustained.

Where excisable goods bear more than one declared retail sale price on the same package, assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 must be made on the highest declared price. The assessee's argument based on multiple printed prices failed, because the valuation rule for different prices on different packages did not apply to the same package. Penalty was set aside, as the dispute turned on interpretation of the valuation provision rather than on conduct warranting penal action. The demand was therefore sustained, with relief granted only on penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether excisable goods bearing more than one retail sale price on the same package were liable to be assessed on the maximum of those prices under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) Whether penalty was justified in a case turning on interpretation of the valuation provision.

Issue (i): Whether excisable goods bearing more than one retail sale price on the same package were liable to be assessed on the maximum of those prices under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The valuation rule permitting different retail prices applies where different retail prices are declared on different packages for different areas. Here, three different prices were printed on the same package. In such a situation, the statutory rule governing packages with more than one declared retail sale price required the highest declared price to be taken for assessment.

Conclusion: The assessment was to be made on the maximum of the retail sale prices declared on the same package, and the assessee's contention failed.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was justified in a case turning on interpretation of the valuation provision.

Analysis: The dispute arose from interpretation of the valuation provision and not from conduct warranting penal action. In such circumstances, the demand could be sustained while penalty was not called for.

Conclusion: Penalty was not sustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The demand was upheld on the valuation issue, while the penalty was annulled, leaving the revenue substantially successful with limited relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where more than one retail sale price is declared on the same package of excisable goods, assessment under Section 4A is to be based on the maximum declared price, but penalty may be declined when the dispute is one of statutory interpretation.

---