Factory-gate valuation governs captively consumed mortar; cost certificate cannot displace normal price without technical evidence.

Where the normal factory-gate price of identical goods was ascertainable, valuation of captively consumed mortar had to follow Section 4(1)(a), and the valuation rules for alternative computation could not be invoked. A claim that the captively consumed goods were of inferior quality failed because the assessee produced no technical evidence to establish any material difference in characteristics. A Chartered Accountant's certificate dealing only with cost components was insufficient to displace the normal price-based valuation. The appellate order was set aside and the original duty demand was restored, resulting in success for the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessable value of mortar captively consumed in the assessee's factory was to be determined on the basis of the normal factory-gate price of identical goods sold to outside buyers, and whether a Chartered Accountant's certificate was sufficient to prove a lower value on the ground of alleged qualitative difference.

Analysis: The available normal price at the factory gate for the mortar sold to outsiders governed valuation under Section 4(1)(a), and the valuation rules could be invoked only when such normal price was not ascertainable. The assessee asserted that the captively consumed mortar was of inferior quality and relied on a Chartered Accountant's certificate, but no technical evidence was produced to establish any difference in material characteristics. The burden to prove such qualitative distinction rested on the assessee, and a certificate dealing only with cost components was not enough to displace the normal price-based valuation. The adjudicating authority's reasons for rejecting the certificate were upheld, and there was no basis to interfere with the factual finding.

Conclusion: The valuation had to be based on the normal factory-gate price, and the claim for a lower assessable value on the strength of the certificate failed; the assessee's contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate order was set aside and the original duty demand order was restored, resulting in success for the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the normal price of goods is ascertainable under Section 4(1)(a), valuation must be based on that price, and a claim for lower assessable value due to alleged qualitative difference in captively consumed goods must be supported by cogent technical evidence, not merely a cost certificate.

---