https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253769 A valuation-based excise demand on captive clearances could not be sustained without first examining the substantive classification plea that the goods fell under heading 8424 and attracted nil duty. The Tribunal held that classification was a threshold defence and that the adjudicating authority erred by refusing to consider it merely because the show cause notice focused on undervaluation. It also held that captive-clearance valuation had to be reworked on a CAS-4 cost-of-production basis under the applicable valuation rules, and that general assessable value principles were insufficient. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication on both classification and valuation. en-us Mon, 05 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2014 16:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253769 A valuation-based excise demand on captive clearances could not be sustained without first examining the substantive classification plea that the goods fell under heading 8424 and attracted nil duty. The Tribunal held that classification was a threshold defence and that the adjudicating authority erred by refusing to consider it merely because the show cause notice focused on undervaluation. It also held that captive-clearance valuation had to be reworked on a CAS-4 cost-of-production basis under the applicable valuation rules, and that general assessable value principles were insufficient. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication on both classification and valuation. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253769