Transaction value under Section 4 and non-dutiable incidental scrap govern valuation and duty for bulk clearances.

After substitution of Section 4, excisable goods sold to an unrelated bulk buyer for sole consideration must be assessed on the transaction value actually paid or payable on each removal, and a higher price charged to other buyers cannot displace that statutory basis. The refusal of provisional assessment on the assumption that the normal price was already known was therefore not justified. Incidental waste and scrap arising from broken bottles, emptied tins, cartons, plastic carboys and similar discarded packing material were treated as non-manufactured remnants and not dutiable on the facts stated, so denial of provisional assessment for those items had no legal basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for clearances made after the substitution of Section 4, the assessable value of goods sold to a bulk buyer was to be determined on the basis of the transaction value actually paid or payable by the buyer, and whether refusal of provisional assessment was justified on the ground that the assessee knew the normal price; (ii) whether waste and scrap arising from broken bottles, emptied tins, cartons, plastic carboys and similar discarded packing material were liable to duty and could be denied provisional assessment.

Issue (i): Whether, for clearances made after the substitution of Section 4, the assessable value of goods sold to a bulk buyer was to be determined on the basis of the transaction value actually paid or payable by the buyer, and whether refusal of provisional assessment was justified on the ground that the assessee knew the normal price.

Analysis: Under the post-substitution scheme of Section 4, where goods are sold, the buyer and assessee are unrelated and price is the sole consideration, the assessable value is the transaction value, namely the price actually paid or payable on each removal. The department's reliance on a higher price charged to other buyers could not override the statutory concept of transaction value. On the facts, no additional payment by the buyer was shown, and the assessable value had to be worked out from the actual sale price after excluding duty and other taxes. The refusal to permit provisional assessment proceeded on an incorrect understanding of the valuation law.

Conclusion: The assessable value had to be determined on the basis of transaction value, and the denial of provisional assessment on that ground was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether waste and scrap arising from broken bottles, emptied tins, cartons, plastic carboys and similar discarded packing material were liable to duty and could be denied provisional assessment.

Analysis: The scrap consisted of remnants and unusable waste arising incidentally in the course of the appellant's operations. The material did not constitute a manufactured excisable product in the circumstances relied upon, and the cited authorities supported the view that such waste or scrap was not dutiable. The departmental refusal to extend provisional assessment for these items therefore had no legal basis.

Conclusion: The waste and scrap were not liable to duty in the manner demanded, and the refusal of provisional assessment for those items was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained on either valuation or scrap-duty issues, and the assessee succeeded in full.

Ratio Decidendi: After the substitution of Section 4, excisable goods sold to an unrelated buyer for sole consideration must be assessed on transaction value actually paid or payable on each removal, and incidental waste or scrap that does not amount to manufacture is not dutiable in the absence of a valid charging basis.

---