Valuation remand could not be recalled where unresolved factual issues prevented final application of the valuation rule

A remand order was not treated as suffering from any rectifiable mistake because the dispute turned on unresolved facts, including whether the assessee made independent sales during the relevant period. The Tribunal noted that the valuation principle could not be applied conclusively without clear factual findings from the adjudicating authority, so the remand was not an error apparent on the record. The argument based on an earlier order in the assessee's own case was rejected because the present period involved distinct factual issues, including the effect of the amendment to Rule 8 of the valuation rules. The request to replace the remand with a final allowance therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier remand order suffered from any rectifiable mistake warranting recall or modification, and whether the matter ought to have been finally allowed instead of being remanded for factual verification.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the earlier order had proceeded on a factual controversy as to whether the assessee had effected independent sales during the relevant period. Since the adjudicating authority had not recorded clear findings on the factual matrix and the applicability of the valuation principle depended on those facts, the remand could not be said to be an error apparent from the record. The plea that an earlier order in the assessee's own case led to a different result was rejected because the present period involved unresolved factual issues, including the effect of the amendment to Rule 8 of the valuation rules.

Conclusion: No rectifiable mistake was shown in the remand order, and the request to substitute it with a final allowance failed.

---