https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213337 A substituted Explanation 2 to Section 4A of the Central Excise Act was treated as clarificatory, not as introducing a new charging rule, so it was read as explaining the earlier provision for the prior period as well. On that construction, where different retail sale prices were declared on packages for different areas, the relevant area-wise retail sale price governed valuation under Section 4A. The form of declaration under Rule 173C(2A) was held not to control substantive liability, and a demand and penalty based on applying only the higher retail sale price were therefore unsustainable. en-us Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 May 2012 07:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213337 A substituted Explanation 2 to Section 4A of the Central Excise Act was treated as clarificatory, not as introducing a new charging rule, so it was read as explaining the earlier provision for the prior period as well. On that construction, where different retail sale prices were declared on packages for different areas, the relevant area-wise retail sale price governed valuation under Section 4A. The form of declaration under Rule 173C(2A) was held not to control substantive liability, and a demand and penalty based on applying only the higher retail sale price were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213337