https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90593 An RT 12 assessment completed by the Superintendent was treated as an appealable assessment decision under Section 35 when the assessee was aggrieved, and the assessee was not confined to a refund claim. Because the proper officer had not carried out reassessment in the manner contemplated by Rule 173C(11), the existing assessment and appellate orders were unsustainable. The valuation issue also required fresh scrutiny, including whether interest on receivables was includible in assessable value and whether the duty element had to be excluded from price under Section 4(4)(d)(ii). The matter was directed to be reassessed with appropriate relief for any excess duty paid. en-us Fri, 14 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:10:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90593 An RT 12 assessment completed by the Superintendent was treated as an appealable assessment decision under Section 35 when the assessee was aggrieved, and the assessee was not confined to a refund claim. Because the proper officer had not carried out reassessment in the manner contemplated by Rule 173C(11), the existing assessment and appellate orders were unsustainable. The valuation issue also required fresh scrutiny, including whether interest on receivables was includible in assessable value and whether the duty element had to be excluded from price under Section 4(4)(d)(ii). The matter was directed to be reassessed with appropriate relief for any excess duty paid. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90593