Valuation based on available declarations cannot be replaced by unsupported averaging or extraneous material in a remand exercise.

Assessable value in a processed fabrics valuation dispute had to be re-determined on the basis of the declarations filed before the department and the record actually available, in line with the Tribunal's earlier remand directions. The Assistant Commissioner could not substitute an unsupported averaging method or rely on extraneous material, including a Supreme Court illustration, to quantify traders' margin of profit. The appellate insistence on pre-deposit and dismissal without ensuring compliance with the remand directions was also incorrect. The impugned determination was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh decision-making on the available declarations, with a direction to pass a speaking order within the fixed time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessable value of processed fabrics had to be re-determined on the basis of the declarations filed before the department, and whether the Assistant Commissioner could adopt an averaging method supported by extraneous material instead of the available declarations.

Analysis: The dispute concerned quantification of the traders' margin of profit for inclusion or exclusion in the assessable value. The declarations filed by the merchant manufacturers were the primary material for such determination. Where the complete record was not available, the determination still had to proceed on the basis of the documents actually on record and in accordance with the Tribunal's earlier remand directions. The Assistant Commissioner's reliance on a Supreme Court illustration, and the averaging method adopted without adequate basis in the available documentation, did not conform to those directions. The appellate authority also erred in insisting on pre-deposit and dismissing the appeal without ensuring a determination in the manner earlier directed.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh by the Assistant Commissioner on the basis of the available declarations and within the framework of the Tribunal's earlier order.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the existing determination was set aside and the proceedings were sent back for fresh decision-making with a direction to pass a speaking order within a fixed time.

Ratio Decidendi: A valuation dispute must be decided on the basis of the relevant declarations and record available before the authority, and a remand direction cannot be satisfied by adopting an unsupported averaging method or extraneous material.

---