CAS-4 valuation for captively consumed goods justified remand for fresh duty computation, with penalty not sustained at that stage.

Valuation of captively consumed intermediate goods after 01/07/2000 was required to be worked out on CAS-4 principles, and the absence of proper costing particulars justified remand for fresh recomputation of duty liability. The Tribunal relied on its earlier view in the same assessee's matter and directed verification of month-wise duty payment against the CAS-4 computation. Penalty was not sustained because the duty demand itself had not been finally determined and the valuation issue remained open for re-adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessable value of intermediate goods captively consumed after 01/07/2000 had to be determined on CAS-4 basis and the demand required fresh adjudication on that footing; (ii) Whether penalty was leviable when the valuation issue and duty liability were to be reworked on remand.

Issue (i): Whether the assessable value of intermediate goods captively consumed after 01/07/2000 had to be determined on CAS-4 basis and the demand required fresh adjudication on that footing.

Analysis: The dispute concerned valuation of intermediate products manufactured and consumed within the factory. The Tribunal treated the issue as covered by its earlier decision in the same assessee's case, where it had held that for the period after 01/07/2000 the value could be computed on CAS-4 basis. It also noted that proper costing details had not been produced during adjudication and that the matter required examination of the monthwise duty paid position against the CAS-4 computation.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for recomputation of duty liability in accordance with the CAS-4 based directions.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was leviable when the valuation issue and duty liability were to be reworked on remand.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier finding that no penalty was imposable where the duty liability was to be determined on the basis of CAS-4 and the matter required fresh verification of the costing details. In the absence of a final determination of short-levy at the adjudication stage, the penalty question could not survive independently against the assessee.

Conclusion: Penalty was not sustained and the adjudicating authority was directed not to impose penalty while re-adjudicating the duty issue.

Final Conclusion: The valuation dispute was sent back for fresh decision on the CAS-4 basis, while the penalty proposal did not survive in the manner originally imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: For captively consumed intermediate goods, post-01/07/2000 valuation is to be determined on CAS-4 principles, and where the requisite costing particulars are absent, the matter may be remanded for recomputation without sustaining penalty at that stage.

---