https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213014 A prior remand direction on valuation had already attained finality, requiring captively consumed goods to be valued by applying the comparable price under Rule 6(b)(i). The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore acted within the binding earlier direction when he remanded the matter only to verify records and determine the correct assessable value. Because the assessable value had not yet been ascertained, the challenge to the remand was treated as premature, and the cited precedents were found inapplicable. The remand order was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was rejected. en-us Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 May 2012 17:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213014 A prior remand direction on valuation had already attained finality, requiring captively consumed goods to be valued by applying the comparable price under Rule 6(b)(i). The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore acted within the binding earlier direction when he remanded the matter only to verify records and determine the correct assessable value. Because the assessable value had not yet been ascertained, the challenge to the remand was treated as premature, and the cited precedents were found inapplicable. The remand order was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213014