https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122311 PCB sub-assemblies had to be valued for central excise by applying the February 2003 Board circular and CAS-4 cost methodology. The adjudicating authority failed to follow the earlier remand direction requiring reconsideration on that basis and treated CAS-4 as a new plea, so the assessable value could not be sustained on the impugned approach. The subsequent Supreme Court ruling in Cadbury India Ltd., on exclusion of certain expenses from the assessable value of captively consumed intermediate products, further supported fresh determination. The valuation order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication in accordance with the circular and later Supreme Court guidance. en-us Mon, 23 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:46:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122311 PCB sub-assemblies had to be valued for central excise by applying the February 2003 Board circular and CAS-4 cost methodology. The adjudicating authority failed to follow the earlier remand direction requiring reconsideration on that basis and treated CAS-4 as a new plea, so the assessable value could not be sustained on the impugned approach. The subsequent Supreme Court ruling in Cadbury India Ltd., on exclusion of certain expenses from the assessable value of captively consumed intermediate products, further supported fresh determination. The valuation order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication in accordance with the circular and later Supreme Court guidance. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122311