Related party valuation under Rule 6(b)(ii) upheld on CAS-4 basis, and the reduced demand was sustained.

Valuation of clearances to a related unit was required to follow Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 and the CAS-4 principles, as directed in the earlier remand. That remand direction had attained finality and was binding in the denovo proceedings. The adjudicating authority valued the goods on that basis, so the appellate mandate was complied with and no infirmity was shown in the reduced demand or penalty. The impugned order was sustained and both the assessee's appeal and the Revenue's appeal were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessable value of goods cleared to a related unit was required to be determined under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 on the basis of CAS-4, in terms of the earlier remand directions, and whether the impugned order confirming reduced demand and penalty could be interfered with.

Analysis: The earlier remand had specifically directed valuation of the goods under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 and on the basis of the principles embodied in CAS-4. That direction had attained finality as it was not challenged by either side. The adjudicating authority, in the denovo proceedings, revalued the goods on that very basis and thus complied with the appellate mandate. In these circumstances, neither the Revenue nor the assessee could establish any infirmity in the impugned order.

Conclusion: The valuation made on the basis of Rule 6(b)(ii) and CAS-4 was upheld, and the impugned order was sustained. The assessee's appeal and the Revenue's appeal were both dismissed.

---