Valuation under Central Excise ( MRP based Valuation u/s 4A or Transaction Value u/s 4) - Versus Provisions of Standards of Weight & Measurement (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977.

Honorable Supreme Court in its ruling [reported in  2008 -TMI - 3484 - Supreme court] has decided the issue of applicability of the provisions of Standards of Weight & Measurement (Packaged commodity) Rules, 1997 and application of provision of Section 4A (or Section 4) of the Central Excise consequently.

In the instant case the manufacture were engaged in manufacturing of "Hair Dye". .  It is packed in pouches each containing 3 gms..  3 pouches (sachets) are sold in one packet.  The net weight of each pouch, as also the net weight of the commodity in 3 pouches and the maximum rate is printed on the pouches.

Manufacturer has cleared these goods under section 4 (Transaction Value) treating that these goods are falling outside the purview of provisions of Standards of Weight & Measurement (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 and thus the provisions of section 4A (MRP based valuation are not attracted).

Department did not agree with the view of the manufacture and dragged the manufacture upto the Supreme Court. In the landmark judgment, Apex court has held that:

"We have noticed hereinbefore that each package offered to sell to the customer contains three sachets.  Net weight of all the three sachets are stated thereon.  It is a "multi piece package" which is capable of being offered to sell as such only because a package is a "multi piece package", the same cannot be taken out of the umbrage of exemption clause contained in Rule 34 of the Rules.  Why the commodity cannot independently be sold either by weight or measure is beyond our comprehension particularly when Rule 12(2) permits the same.  The illustration appended to Rule 2(j) bring out a clearer picture.   It states that the combined net weight shall be taken into consideration for the purposes mentioned therein.  After combined weight is taken into consideration for the purpose of applicability of the Rules, there is no reason as to why the said purpose shall not be considered to be a relevant factor for applying the exemption provision.  Assuming Rule 2(j) was otherwise vague or unambiguous, illustration appended thereto brings out the true meaning and purport thereof." 

Final Decision: - Valuation to be done u/s 4 and not u/s 4A 

------------ 

[For full text of judgment - visit 2008 -TMI - 3484 - Supreme court]