Captive consumption valuation turns on contemporaneous comparable purchase price when fixed-price evidence is unproved.

Valuation of captively consumed molasses was held to depend on reliable evidence of the applicable price basis. A committee-fixed price could not be used because the committee minutes were not produced and no statutory fixation was proved; the departmental instruction price was also unsupported by evidence. In that situation, valuation had to proceed under the relevant valuation rule on the basis of comparable contemporaneous purchases. The appellant's own three purchases during the same period were treated as reliable comparables, and the lowest contemporaneous purchase price was taken as the proper assessable value.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for valuation of molasses captively consumed in manufacture, the assessable value should be based on the committee-fixed price or departmental instruction price, or on the contemporaneous purchase price of comparable goods.

Analysis: The claimed committee-fixed price could not be accepted because the minutes of the committee meeting were not produced and there was no proof that such a price had in fact been fixed under statutory authority. The departmental instruction relied upon by the appellant was also not produced. In the absence of evidence supporting either of those figures, valuation had to proceed under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Valuation Rules on the basis of comparable goods. The department had shown three purchases made by the appellant during the same period, and no material was produced to show that the contemporary purchase price was unreliable. The plea that one transaction was a stray transaction was found insufficient. Among the three prices, the lowest contemporaneous purchase price was treated as the proper basis for assessable value.

Conclusion: The assessable value was to be fixed on the lowest contemporaneous purchase price of comparable molasses, not on the committee-fixed price or the departmental instruction price. The appeal succeeded only to the extent of rejecting the higher price adopted by the lower authority.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of reliable evidence of a controlled or administratively fixed price, valuation of goods for excise purposes must be based on the price of comparable contemporaneous transactions under the relevant valuation rule.

---