Salivary gland tumors are diverse in morphology and both benign and malignant tumors may pose diagnostic challenges especially in small biopsies. Salivary gland cancer (SGC) classification has been updated and 2017 WHO Classification Head and Neck Tumors describes relatively recent entities in detail with clear understanding of pathogenesis and molecular profile [1]. Among these, mammary analog secretory carcinoma is a tumor which after its first description in 2010 by Skalova et al. [2] has been renamed as secretory carcinoma (SC) in the 4th edition of WHO Classification Head and Neck Tumors in 2017. SC is defined by the presence of a novel fusion gene ETV6::NTRK3 which is the basis of relabeling of some of the acinic cell carcinoma (AciCC) as SC. Additional partner genes are under study and their prognostic implications have been identified [3]. The morphological features of SC include microcysts, follicles and solid growth pattern, [4] mucinous material within lumina of microcysts, papillary structures, and absence of zymogen granules. Tumors mimicking SC on histological examination include AciCC, oncocytic variant of mucoepidermoid carcinoma, adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified (NOS), and low-grade cribriform cystadenocarcinoma [5]. Targeted therapies based on molecular profile emphasize the importance of correct diagnosis. Morphological overlap occurs between SC and other carcinomas in the list of differential diagnosis. Adjunct tools such as immunohistochemical stains are being increasingly utilized to reach a definite diagnosis, being more so in resource-constrained countries where availability of molecular testing is limited or not available at all. Immunohistochemical stains that are useful in the diagnosis of SC are mammaglobin, S100 and gross cystic disease fluid protein 15(GCDFP15) as positive markers, whereas p63, SOX10 and Discovered on GIST-1 (DOG 1) are taken as negative immunostains [4]. Mucins are glycoproteins present in various glandular tissues. MUC4 (Mucin 4) is normally expressed in colon and excretory portion of salivary glands. It is regarded as a signal modulator causing phenotypic differentiation in tumors [5]. MUC4 immunostaining has been reported positive in SC in various studies. Taverna et al. studied MUC4 utility in differentiating SC from its close morphological mimics and reported 90.7 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity [6]. An exclusive study aiming to evaluate utility of MUC4 positivity in various histological patterns of SC has not been done in our country. The current study describes MUC4 expression in SC along with CK7, mammaglobin, S100 and DOG1. The study would help us in developing framework to reach a correct diagnosis of SC by combined use of histological features with a cost-effective panel of immunohistochemical stains and can avoid ETV6 FISH testing in most of the cases. This is a step towards better yet cost-effective patient care especially in an era where COVID-19 pandemic has hit economies of developing countries in the worst fashion.