Tribunal remands valuation issue, directs reassessment under Rule 6(b)(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, remanding the matter for revaluation of goods not covered in the price lists. The Department's valuation based on prices of similar goods from the part-II price list was accepted, but for goods not listed in either price list, re-determination of assessable values under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules was directed. The appellant was granted an opportunity to present their case before the re-determination, emphasizing the need for a speaking appealable order in compliance with the law.

---

---

Issues: Valuation of goods for excise duty based on different price lists

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the valuation of "Twiga Insulation Resin Bonded Glass Wool Mat. Pipe Section" by M/s. U.P. Twiga Fiberglass Ltd. The company declared prices in part-I and part-II price list proforma for sales to different buyers.

2. The appellant argued that the Department was not justified in independently arriving at the assessable value for goods not similar to those in the part-II price list. They contended that valuation should have been done under Rule 6b(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules for such goods.

3. The Department, represented by the learned SDR, stated that there was no factory gate sale for the goods in question, and the prices in the part-I price list proforma had no basis. They adopted prices from the part-II price list for similar goods and defended their approach.

4. The Tribunal acknowledged the absence of factory gate sales for the goods, which were directly transported to the insulation site under contract. They agreed with the Department's valuation based on prices of similar goods from the part-II price list.

5. However, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument regarding goods not listed in either price list. They directed the re-determination of assessable values for such goods under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner.

6. The Tribunal granted the appellant an opportunity to present their case before the re-determination and emphasized the need for a speaking appealable order in compliance with the law.

7. In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, and the matter was remanded for revaluation of goods not covered in the price lists, ensuring compliance with the Central Excise Valuation Rules.

---