Valuation on remand must follow relevant factors, while distinguishable facts require independent examination of the defence.

A remand direction was interpreted as requiring the adjudicating authority to consider relevant valuation factors, including tribunal precedent, departmental instructions, market enquiry, and the marble's colour and country of origin, but not as mandating valuation on the basis of marble slabs instead of marble blocks. The text also states that judicial discipline requires lower authorities to follow higher appellate rulings, yet where facts are distinguishable the authority must independently examine the defence and reply to the show cause notice. On that reading, no binding direction to adopt slab value was found, and the appeal was rejected as lacking merit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the remand order required the adjudicating authority to adopt the price of marble slabs instead of marble blocks, and whether the appeal against the remand directions had merit.

Analysis: The remand directions did not mandate adoption of the value of marble slabs as the reckoning factor. They only required the adjudicating authority to keep in mind relevant parameters, including the cited tribunal decision, departmental instructions, market enquiry, the colour and country of origin of the marble, and the gravity of the offence. The tribunal held that judicial discipline binds a lower authority to follow higher appellate rulings, but where the facts are distinguishable the authority must independently examine the defence and reply to the show cause notice. On a fair reading of the remand order, no direction was found compelling the adjudicating authority to value the goods as marble slabs instead of marble blocks.

Conclusion: The appeal had no merit and was rejected.

---