https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33153 For valuation of air conditioners under Section 4A, the higher MRP declared on packages meant for other areas could not be adopted for goods actually sold in Silvassa at a lower MRP. Explanation 2(a) applies only where more than one retail sale price is declared on the same package, and no such multiple declaration was found on the Silvassa packages. The declared Silvassa MRP was actually charged, with no excess collection, while Explanation 2(b) supported area-specific MRPs on different packages. The demand based on the higher depot-bound MRP was therefore unjustified, and the penalties founded on that demand could not survive. en-us Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33153 For valuation of air conditioners under Section 4A, the higher MRP declared on packages meant for other areas could not be adopted for goods actually sold in Silvassa at a lower MRP. Explanation 2(a) applies only where more than one retail sale price is declared on the same package, and no such multiple declaration was found on the Silvassa packages. The declared Silvassa MRP was actually charged, with no excess collection, while Explanation 2(b) supported area-specific MRPs on different packages. The demand based on the higher depot-bound MRP was therefore unjustified, and the penalties founded on that demand could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33153