https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95283 Blended yarn captively consumed in fabric manufacture was to be valued under Rule 6(b)(i) by reference to comparable goods, with suitable adjustments for differences in material characteristics. Differences in variety, input ratio, or quality did not justify shifting to cost-of-manufacture valuation where the rule expressly required the comparable-goods method. The remand direction merely required the authority to determine value on that basis after making the necessary adjustments, and the challenge to the remand order failed. en-us Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:29:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95283 Blended yarn captively consumed in fabric manufacture was to be valued under Rule 6(b)(i) by reference to comparable goods, with suitable adjustments for differences in material characteristics. Differences in variety, input ratio, or quality did not justify shifting to cost-of-manufacture valuation where the rule expressly required the comparable-goods method. The remand direction merely required the authority to determine value on that basis after making the necessary adjustments, and the challenge to the remand order failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95283