Comparable-goods valuation for captive consumption applies, with limited reconsideration only for production-volume adjustment and no transport deduction.

Captively consumed sulphuric acid may be valued under the comparable-goods method where the goods are similar in quality and characteristics, and mere differences in production scale or captive use do not by themselves require resort to cost of production plus profit. The valuation must, however, allow reasonable adjustment for any material effect of production volume on price, and that factual question was remitted for limited reconsideration. Transportation charges were not deductible under Section 4(2) because captive consumption involves no sale or delivery at a place other than the place of removal, so the statutory conditions were not met.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in valuing captively consumed sulphuric acid, the proper method was valuation on the basis of comparable goods under Rule 6(b)(i) or cost of production plus profit under Rule 6(b)(ii); (ii) whether the difference in volume of production required adjustment as a relevant factor while applying the comparable-goods method; (iii) whether transportation charges under Section 4(2) were deductible in a case of captive consumption.

Issue (i): Whether, in valuing captively consumed sulphuric acid, the proper method was valuation on the basis of comparable goods under Rule 6(b)(i) or cost of production plus profit under Rule 6(b)(ii).

Analysis: Section 4 and Rule 6(b) create a hierarchy for valuation where goods are not sold and are used in manufacture. Comparable goods are to be preferred where the goods are comparable in quality and characteristics. Mere differences in scale of production or the fact that one manufacturer consumes the entire output captively while another sells part of it do not by themselves make the goods non-comparable.

Conclusion: Valuation under Rule 6(b)(i) applied and Rule 6(b)(ii) was inapplicable.

Issue (ii): Whether the difference in volume of production required adjustment as a relevant factor while applying the comparable-goods method.

Analysis: The proviso to Rule 6(b)(i) requires reasonable adjustment for relevant factors, including material differences between the goods assessed and the comparable goods. The question whether production volume affects normal price is factual and must be supported by materials showing that bulk production or partial captive sale affects pricing. The Collector had considered the matter but the assessee was allowed an opportunity to place further material on record.

Conclusion: The matter required reconsideration limited to adjustment, if any, on account of difference in volume of production.

Issue (iii): Whether transportation charges under Section 4(2) were deductible in a case of captive consumption.

Analysis: Section 4(2) applies only where the price for delivery at the place of removal is not known and valuation is based on delivery at a place other than the place of removal. In captive consumption there is no sale or delivery, and the statutory conditions for exclusion of transportation cost are not satisfied.

Conclusion: Section 4(2) did not apply.

Final Conclusion: The valuation based on comparable goods was upheld, but the order was set aside to the limited extent of reconsidering adjustment for the difference in volume of production, leaving the other findings undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: For captively consumed goods, valuation may be based on comparable goods where similarity in quality and characteristics exists, and transportation exclusion applies only when the statutory conditions of sale-related delivery are satisfied.

---