Normal price governs captive consumption valuation when open market sales exist and Rule 6 cannot replace it.

Where the normal price under Section 4(1)(a) is available for goods sold in the open market, valuation of captively consumed goods cannot be shifted to Rule 6 on a lower or different basis. The fact that only a small part of production was sold openly did not change the character of that price as the normal price, absent any finding that it failed the statutory conditions. The assessee also did not establish a separate class of buyers or a different normal price for captive clearances. Rule 6 applies only when normal price is not ascertainable, so the open market sale price was correctly adopted for valuation.

---

---

Issues: Whether, when the normal price under Section 4(1)(a) is available for goods sold in the open market, a separate assessable value for goods captively consumed can be determined under Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules on the basis of a lower or different price.

Analysis: The availability of normal price under Section 4(1)(a) excluded resort to the valuation rules for the same goods. The fact that only a small fraction of the production was sold in the open market did not alter the character of that price as the normal price, since there was no finding that it failed to satisfy the statutory parameters. The appellants also failed to show that sales for captive consumption formed a separate class of buyers under the statutory proviso or that a different normal price existed for such clearances. Rule 6 could be invoked only when normal price was not ascertainable, which was not the case here.

Conclusion: The open market sale price was rightly adopted for valuation of the captively consumed goods, and the appeals were without merit.

---