Bulk transfer valuation for service use must follow cost-based excise rules, not retail price comparison.

Excisable pesticides and insecticides cleared in bulk from a factory to a service centre for use in pest control contracts were not to be valued on retail sale prices, because the transfers were not sales of retail packs to independent buyers. Valuation had to follow the excise framework applicable where no direct sale price was available, using a cost-construction or comparable captive-consumption method consistent with the statutory valuation scheme. Different packing and service use made retail comparison inappropriate, and the Board's circulars supported excluding retail-price valuation in this context. The result was that the revenue's challenge failed and valuation was to be determined on the cost-based basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether excisable pesticides and insecticides cleared in bulk from the factory to the assessee's service centre for use in pest control contracts were required to be valued on the basis of retail prices, or by cost construction / related valuation rules applicable to captive consumption and valuation where no direct sale price was available.

Analysis: The removals to the service centre were not sales in retail packs to independent buyers, but transfers of bulk goods for use in the assessee's own service operations. The valuation therefore had to be determined with reference to the excise valuation framework applicable where the normal sale price mechanism was not appropriate. Different packing and the end-use in service operations made comparison with retail sale goods inappropriate. The applicable approach was the valuation method consistent with the principles of captive consumption, and where the relevant rules did not directly fit, reasonable means consistent with the statutory valuation scheme could be adopted. The Board's circulars relied upon also supported exclusion of retail comparison in such a situation.

Conclusion: Valuation of the bulk clearances to the service centre was not to be made on the basis of retail sale prices; it was to be worked out under the cost/construction-based valuation approach as applicable under the relevant excise valuation rules. The revenue's challenge failed and the assessee's appeals succeeded to that extent.

---