Captive-use excisable goods valuation u/s4 r.6(b)(ii): cost plus projected manufacturing profit upheld; extra duty demand set aside

For valuation of captively consumed excisable goods under s. 4 and r. 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, the tribunal held that the assessable value must be based on cost of production plus the gross manufacturing profit that would ordinarily be earned on sale of the goods under assessment, determined on generally accepted costing principles; profits or losses from other divisions or activities are irrelevant, and the absence of an actual sale does not negate inclusion of a projected profit. Since the assessee's price declaration adopted prior-year divisional profit in accordance with a binding CBEC circular, the department could not demand duty beyond valuation computed per that circular; the duty demand was set aside. Consequential penalties, being dependent on the demand, were also set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, the profit to be included in valuation of captively consumed goods is the profit that the assessee would have normally earned on the sale of the goods under assessment; (ii) Whether profit or loss from other manufacturing or trading activities is relevant in determining the assessable value of captively consumed goods; (iii) Whether the profit to be included is a projected profit and the standard for its computation; (iv) Whether the profit to be included is gross profit or net profit.

Issue (i): Whether the profit to be taken into account under Rule 6(b)(ii) is the profit the assessee would have normally earned on sale of the captively consumed goods.

Analysis: The Court examined Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act and the Valuation Rules, noting that valuation aims at the normal sale price or the nearest ascertainable equivalent. Rule 6(b)(ii) provides for valuation on cost of production including the profit the assessee would have normally earned on sale of such goods. The Court interpreted these provisions to require the profit relatable to the goods under assessment rather than actual profit (since captively consumed goods are not sold) and observed that such profit must be the profit that would have been earned on sale of those goods.

Conclusion: The profit to be taken into account under Rule 6(b)(ii) is the profit that the assessee would have normally earned on sale of the goods under assessment (captively consumed goods).

Issue (ii): Whether profit or loss from other activities of the manufacturer is relevant in determining assessable value of captively consumed goods.

Analysis: The Court applied the statutory yardstick of the normal sale price of the goods under assessment and the nearest ascertainable equivalent, noting Rule 6(b)(i) permits comparison with comparable goods of the same type, style, quality and class. It held that the assessment must focus on the goods under assessment and adjustments, if any, must relate to material differences between those goods and comparables.

Conclusion: Profit or loss from manufacture of other goods or other activities of the manufacturer is irrelevant for determining the assessable value of captively consumed goods.

Issue (iii): Whether the profit to be included is a projected profit and the manner of its computation.

Analysis: The Court observed that captively consumed goods are not sold and therefore actual profit is not realized; the profit element must be projected. The parties agreed industry routinely projects such profit and generally accepted costing principles and accounting standards govern inter-process profit and transfer pricing. The Court held that projection should follow generally accepted principles of costing.

Conclusion: The profit to be included is a projected profit, to be determined in accordance with generally accepted principles of costing of manufactured goods.

Issue (iv): Whether the profit to be included in valuation is gross profit or net profit.

Analysis: Interpreting Section 4 and the Valuation Rules, the Court noted that sale price of a manufacturer includes total (gross) profit and that taxes and other deductions are to be accounted for thereafter; thus the statutory scheme contemplates inclusion of gross profit in valuation.

Conclusion: The profit to be included in the valuation of captively consumed goods is gross profit and not net profit.

Final Conclusion: The reference is answered by holding that valuation of captively consumed goods under Rule 6(b)(ii) requires inclusion of the profit that would normally have been earned on the sale of the goods under assessment (as a projected gross profit computed by accepted costing principles), excluding profits or losses from other activities; applying these principles, the impugned adjudication was set aside and the appeals allowed with consequential reliefs.

Ratio Decidendi: For valuation of captively consumed goods under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, the assessable value is to reflect the normal sale price or its nearest ascertainable equivalent by including a projected gross profit attributable to the goods under assessment determined by generally accepted costing principles, and excluding profit or loss from other activities of the assessee.

---