Captive consumption valuation may use a solitary arm's length sale price, but only after verifying comparable variety and quality.

Under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, a solitary arm's length sale to an outside buyer can furnish the normal price for valuing captively consumed goods; multiple sales are not required, and the sale price may be adopted for captive-clearance valuation. However, where the record indicates possible differences in variety or quality between the sold goods and the captively used goods, the comparable sale price must be verified on a variety-wise basis before application. The valuation was therefore upheld in principle, but remitted for factual verification and fresh computation under the correct rule-based method if comparability was not established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the price of a solitary sale to an outside buyer could be adopted for valuation of goods captively consumed under the excise valuation rules; and (ii) whether the valuation had to be re-examined where the outside-sale goods and the captively consumed goods may have been of different varieties or qualities.

Issue (i): Whether the price of a solitary sale to an outside buyer could be adopted for valuation of goods captively consumed under the excise valuation rules.

Analysis: Section 4 of the Central Excise Act contemplated valuation on the basis of the normal price, and where such price was available through actual sale, the captive-clearance valuation could be supported by that price. The valuation rules did not require multiple outside sales before a sale price could be used. If the sale was at arm's length and on a principal-to-principal basis, a solitary sale was sufficient to furnish the basis for captive-consumption valuation.

Conclusion: The solitary outside-sale price could validly be adopted for valuation of captively consumed goods.

Issue (ii): Whether the valuation had to be re-examined where the outside-sale goods and the captively consumed goods may have been of different varieties or qualities.

Analysis: The record showed different varieties and model-wise price variations, and the materials before the authority did not conclusively establish that the outside sale and captive use related to the same variety. In such circumstances, the jurisdictional officer had to verify the particular variety used for captive consumption and then determine whether the comparable sale price could properly be applied, failing which valuation had to proceed under the alternative rule-based method.

Conclusion: The matter required remand for factual verification and fresh valuation on the correct variety-wise basis.

Final Conclusion: The legal basis for using the outside-sale price for captive-consumption valuation was upheld, but the valuation issue was sent back for limited verification of the relevant variety and application of the correct rule-based method thereafter.

Ratio Decidendi: Where captively consumed goods are also sold in the market, even a solitary arm's length sale can furnish the normal price for valuation, but the sale price can be applied only after ensuring that the goods are comparable in variety and quality.

---