Final remand direction on excise valuation upheld; comparable price basis for captively consumed goods could not be challenged as premature.

A prior remand direction on valuation had already attained finality, requiring captively consumed goods to be valued by applying the comparable price under Rule 6(b)(i). The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore acted within the binding earlier direction when he remanded the matter only to verify records and determine the correct assessable value. Because the assessable value had not yet been ascertained, the challenge to the remand was treated as premature, and the cited precedents were found inapplicable. The remand order was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in remanding the matter for determination of the assessable value of captively consumed goods by applying Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules on the basis of comparable price.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that in the earlier round it had already directed consideration of the comparable price of goods manufactured by Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. and purchased by the respondent during the relevant period, and had held that such comparable price was to be applied under Rule 6(b)(i). That direction had attained finality as it was not challenged by the department. The Commissioner (Appeals) merely followed that binding direction and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to verify records and determine the correct assessable value. Since the assessable value had not yet been ascertained, the Tribunal held that the Revenue's challenge was premature and that the cited precedents did not assist the Revenue.

Conclusion: The remand order was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal affirmed that the valuation exercise had to proceed on the basis directed in the earlier final order and that no interference was called for at the stage of remand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a prior remand direction on valuation has attained finality, a subsequent remand by the appellate authority to determine assessable value by applying the same binding methodology cannot be interfered with as premature.

---