Excise valuation by comparable sale upheld where captively consumed goods had only one usable transaction for the relevant period.

Where excisable goods are captively consumed, Rule 6(b)(i) requires valuation by reference to comparable goods, and a prior sale that had ceased before the relevant period cannot be used for that later period. For the period in question, the only available comparable was a solitary sale transaction at Rs. 100 per kg in December 1997. On that footing, the sale furnished the only workable comparable price for valuation under the rule, and the valuation based on it was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the relevant period, valuation of excisable goods under Rule 6(b)(i) could be based on the only available solitary sale transaction when the goods were otherwise captively consumed.

Analysis: Rule 6(b)(i) required adoption of the price of comparable goods for valuation. The earlier sales to the Goa customer had ceased before the period in question and could not form the basis for valuation of the later period. During the relevant period, the only comparable sale available was a solitary transaction at Rs. 100 per kg in December 1997, while the goods were otherwise captively consumed. In these circumstances, that solitary sale furnished the only workable comparable price for determining valuation.

Conclusion: The solitary sale could validly be adopted as the basis for valuation under Rule 6(b)(i), and the challenge to that approach failed.

Final Conclusion: The valuation adopted on the basis of the available comparable sale was upheld, and the assessee's position prevailed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are captively consumed and only one comparable sale transaction is available for the relevant period, that sale may be adopted as the basis for valuation under the applicable excise valuation rule.

---