1996 (10) TMI 330 - AT - Central Excise

CEGAT upholds averaging captively consumed goods prices, rejects highest price argument, emphasizes adjustments. Orders set aside, appeal dismissed.

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT held that valuing captively consumed goods at the average of prices declared for different buyer groups was reasonable, ... Valuation - Classes of buyers Issues: Valuation of captively consumed goods based on price lists for different buyer groups.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, the common appellant, a manufacturer of Sulphuric Acid, had a factory in Udhna, Surat District. The appellant filed three types of price lists for different buyer groups: Group A for buyers between Vapi and Ankleshwar, Group B for buyers beyond Ankleshwar, and Group C for captively consumed acid. The dispute centered around whether the assessable value of captively consumed goods should be based on the average of prices declared for Group A and Group B or solely on the price declared for Group A. The appellant contended that due to competition and transportation costs, they offered lower prices for buyers beyond Ankleshwar and higher prices for buyers between Vapi and Ankleshwar, with the captively consumed goods priced at the average of the two.The Tribunal considered previous decisions, including National Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. CCE and Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE, which highlighted the practice of valuing captively consumed goods at lower prices to account for additional expenses incurred when selling to outside parties. Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 was also referenced, emphasizing the need for adjustments based on relevant factors. The Department argued for valuing captively consumed goods at the highest price declared for buyers within Ankleshwar, equating them with external buyers. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that applying the highest price would not be appropriate as captively consumed goods avoid certain expenses associated with external sales.Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and held that valuing captively consumed goods at the average of prices declared for Group A and Group B was reasonable. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the valuation method based on the appellant's pricing structure for different buyer groups.