CAS-4 valuation for captive consumption applies retrospectively, while notional profit loading on cost was upheld for later periods.

CAS-4 valuation was applied to captive consumption even for the period before 1 July 2000, because the cost-accounting method was treated as applicable retrospectively for determining assessable value; the differential duty demand for that earlier period was set aside in favour of the assessee. For the later period, notional profit could be added to the cost of production where the assessee did not establish a lower margin, and the valuation based on that profit loading was sustained. The appeal succeeded only on the retrospective CAS-4 issue, while the profit-loading element was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessable value of goods transferred for captive consumption could be determined on the basis of CAS-4 standards for the earlier period prior to 1 July 2000. (ii) Whether the impugned valuation was liable to be sustained by adding notional profit to the cost of production for the subsequent period.

Issue (i): Whether the assessable value of goods transferred for captive consumption could be determined on the basis of CAS-4 standards for the earlier period prior to 1 July 2000.

Analysis: The valuation for captive clearances was examined in the light of the cost accountant-based CAS-4 method and the administrative circular prescribing that method for captive consumption. The earlier period dispute turned on whether the method could be applied retrospectively. Reliance was placed on the settled position that CAS-4 principles are applicable even for periods before 1 July 2000.

Conclusion: The valuation on the basis of CAS-4 was held to be correct and the demand for differential duty for the earlier period was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned valuation was liable to be sustained by adding notional profit to the cost of production for the subsequent period.

Analysis: For the later period, the dispute was confined to the profit element to be loaded on cost. The impugned order followed the Supreme Court guidance that notional profit may be added to arrive at the correct assessable value, and that if the assessee could not establish a lower margin, a 10 per cent addition could be adopted. On that basis, the appellate finding sustained the adopted profit margin.

Conclusion: The addition of notional profit was upheld and the impugned order was sustained on this aspect, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the retrospective CAS-4 valuation issue, while the profit-loading aspect of valuation for the later period was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: CAS-4 based valuation can be applied to captive consumption even for periods prior to its formal administrative prescription, and notional profit may be added to cost of production where the assessee fails to establish a lower appropriate margin.

---