Captive consumption valuation turns on identity of goods; packing and clearance differences do not defeat market-based assessable value.

Captively consumed hydraulic gear and hydraulic distribution assembly used in tractor manufacture were treated as identical to spare parts sold in the market for valuation purposes. The Tribunal found that the goods were made from the same materials, followed the same manufacturing process, had the same specifications and quality, and remained commercially interchangeable. Differences in naked condition, packing, marking, oil filling and rustproofing were only clearance-related incidents and did not change the identity of the goods. On that basis, the market price of the comparable spare parts was the correct assessable value, and no separate valuation on the assessee's proposed basis was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether hydraulic gear and hydraulic distribution assembly captively consumed in the manufacture of tractors were to be valued on the basis of the price at which identical goods were sold in the spare parts market, on the footing that the goods were comparable and not different merely because of packing, marking or delivery condition.

Analysis: The Revenue's consistent case was that the captively consumed parts and the parts sold as spare parts were manufactured from the same materials, emerged from the same process, had the same specification and quality, and were fully interchangeable. The differences relied upon by the assessee, such as naked condition, packing, marking, oil filling and rustproofing, were only incidents of the stream of clearance and did not alter the identity of the goods. The valuation notices and the adjudication orders were found to proceed on the basis that the market price of the spare parts represented the proper assessable value of the captively consumed goods. The Tribunal held that the lower authorities correctly treated the goods as identical or comparable and that no separate valuation on the assessee's suggested basis was warranted.

Conclusion: The captively consumed goods were rightly valued by reference to the price of the goods sold in the spare parts market, and the assessee's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where captively consumed and market-sold goods are identical in specification, manufacture and commercial identity, ancillary differences in packing or clearance conditions do not justify separate valuation, and the market price of the comparable goods constitutes the assessable value.

---