https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352977 Valuation of clearances to a related unit was required to follow Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 and the CAS-4 principles, as directed in the earlier remand. That remand direction had attained finality and was binding in the denovo proceedings. The adjudicating authority valued the goods on that basis, so the appellate mandate was complied with and no infirmity was shown in the reduced demand or penalty. The impugned order was sustained and both the assessee's appeal and the Revenue's appeal were dismissed. en-us Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Dec 2017 08:40:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352977 Valuation of clearances to a related unit was required to follow Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 and the CAS-4 principles, as directed in the earlier remand. That remand direction had attained finality and was binding in the denovo proceedings. The adjudicating authority valued the goods on that basis, so the appellate mandate was complied with and no infirmity was shown in the reduced demand or penalty. The impugned order was sustained and both the assessee's appeal and the Revenue's appeal were dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352977