Captive consumption valuation under CAS-4: remnant value exclusion rejected and differential duty demand upheld.

For captive consumption valuation of steel components, the cost of production under CAS-4 did not permit exclusion of the purchase value of remnant parts and rejected material where Cenvat credit had been taken on the full input stream. Scrap, waste and recovery values could be adjusted in the cost sheet, but the remnant value itself was not deductible from production cost on these facts. The department's CAS-4-based computation was treated as consistent with the applicable valuation framework, and the differential duty demand was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for valuation of components cleared for captive consumption, the value of remnant parts and rejected material cut out from steel sheets was required to be excluded from the cost of production, and whether the differential duty demand based on CAS-4 computation was sustainable.

Analysis: The appellants had availed Cenvat credit on the entire input raw materials used in production. The cost auditor applied the CAS-4 methodology by taking the full material consumed and reducing only the actual sale value of waste, scrap and remnants. Under the cost sheet principles for captive consumption, recoveries for scrap and wastage are to be adjusted, but the exclusion of the purchase value of remnants from the cost of production was not accepted where credit had been taken on the whole input stream. The valuation method adopted by the department was therefore held to be in accordance with the applicable framework.

Conclusion: The exclusion of the remnant value was rejected and the differential duty demand was upheld.

---