Excise valuation under Section 4 follows the declared removal price, not a later resale price after diversion or sale.

For excise valuation of goods cleared under Rule 196A(i) and later diverted or resold, assessable value under Section 4 was to be based on the normal price at the time and place of removal. The manufacturer's declared value in the removal documents was the relevant basis for assessment, and the later resale price realised by the assessee did not govern valuation. The Tribunal followed its earlier view in H.M.T. Ltd. on the same valuation issue and upheld the assessment on the declared value rather than the subsequent sale price.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for goods cleared under Rule 196A(i) and later diverted or sold, the assessable value had to be determined on the basis of the price declared by the manufacturer in the removal documents or on the basis of the price at which the goods were subsequently sold by the assessee.

Analysis: Valuation for excise duty was required to be made under Section 4 of the Act on the basis of the normal price, namely the price at which the goods are ordinarily sold for delivery at the time and place of removal. The declared value furnished by the manufacturer was held to be the relevant basis for assessment. The later sale price realised by the assessee after removal did not govern the assessable value. The earlier Tribunal view in H.M.T. Ltd. was followed as applicable to the same valuation issue.

Conclusion: The assessable value was correctly taken on the basis of the manufacturer's declared value and not the subsequent resale price, so the departmental challenge failed.

---