https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86084 A valuation dispute under excise law required the authority to examine Rule 6(b)(i), the primary comparable-goods method, before resorting to Rule 6(b)(ii), the residual cost-based method. The record showed that the price lists and approval order themselves raised the applicability of Rule 6(b)(i), so a direction under Section 35E(2) could validly cover that issue even though it was not separately discussed in detail. However, Rule 6(b)(ii) could not be applied without first considering whether comparable goods were available and whether valuation could be determined under Rule 6(b)(i). The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh valuation after hearing the assessee. en-us Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:31:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86084 A valuation dispute under excise law required the authority to examine Rule 6(b)(i), the primary comparable-goods method, before resorting to Rule 6(b)(ii), the residual cost-based method. The record showed that the price lists and approval order themselves raised the applicability of Rule 6(b)(i), so a direction under Section 35E(2) could validly cover that issue even though it was not separately discussed in detail. However, Rule 6(b)(ii) could not be applied without first considering whether comparable goods were available and whether valuation could be determined under Rule 6(b)(i). The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh valuation after hearing the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86084