Differential valuation dispute remanded where the core factual basis for price variation was not properly examined.

Differential valuation of industrial and commercial brass rods and wires turned on whether the two grades were in fact different and whether that difference justified the price variation. The lower appellate authority failed to address that core factual question and instead relied on the absence of separate declaration and accounting, despite record material showing separate price lists and separate accounting entries. Because the evidence then available was insufficient to finally resolve the dispute, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals), with liberty to both sides to adduce additional evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the matter relating to differential valuation of industrial and commercial quality brass rods and wires required fresh consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis: The lower appellate authority did not address the central question whether the two grades were in fact different and, if so, whether any such difference justified the price variation. Its conclusion rested on the absence of separate declaration and accounting, whereas the record showed separate price lists and separate accounting entries. The evidence produced before the Tribunal was insufficient to finally resolve the factual dispute on the basis of material then available.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed by remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration with liberty to adduce additional evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the lower appellate authority fails to decide the core factual basis for valuation, the matter may be remanded for fresh adjudication after allowing both sides to lead evidence.

---