Gross profit, not net profit, governs captive consumption valuation; consequential relief was also available.

For captive consumption valuation under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, the profit element to be added to cost of production was held to be gross profit, not net profit. Gross profit was treated as the proper valuation input because it did not duplicate any item already included in manufacturing cost, while net profit emerged only after excluding depreciation. The objection of double accounting was rejected on the facts, though duplication of overheads already included in cost was disallowed. Consequential relief was also recognised, and unjust enrichment under Section 11B(2) was held not to apply to captive consumption.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for goods captively consumed by the assessee, the profit to be added to the cost of production under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules is gross profit or net profit, and whether the assessee was entitled to consequential relief on the basis of the lower profit margin.

Analysis: Rule 6(b)(ii) requires the assessable value of captively consumed goods to be worked out by adding the profit element to the cost of manufacture. The profit reflected in the assessee's accounts was examined with reference to the sale figures and expenditure, and it was found that the gross profit figure did not duplicate any item already included in the cost of production. Net profit, as claimed by the assessee, was derived only after excluding depreciation from gross profit, and therefore did not represent the proper profit element for valuation. The objection that gross profit would result in double accounting was rejected on the facts, though it was accepted that duplication of overheads would not be permissible where such items were already included in manufacturing cost. The Tribunal also held that consequential relief could be granted and that unjust enrichment under Section 11B(2) was not attracted to captive consumption.

Conclusion: Gross profit, and not net profit, was the correct element to be added under Rule 6(b)(ii), but the assessee was entitled to have the profit margin restricted to 9.3% as reflected in its accounts. The impugned valuation was set aside to that extent, with consequential benefits to the assessee.

---