Delivery charges outside sale consideration defeat interest and penalty, while appellate relief must stay within the pleaded challenge.

Delivery charges reflected in invoices were held not to form part of the sale consideration for excisable goods on the facts found, so the related demands of interest and penalty could not stand; the absence of suppression also supported setting aside penal consequences. The High Court further noted that an appellate forum should not dispose of an appeal beyond the scope of the challenge actually pressed, and the Tribunal's order required modification to the extent it had set aside the duty demand without the assessee pursuing that ground. Relief from interest and penalty was therefore maintained, while the overbroad disposal was corrected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether delivery charges collected from customers formed part of the consideration for excisable goods; (ii) whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the entire Order-in-Original despite the assessee not pressing the challenge to the duty demand before it.

Issue (i): whether delivery charges collected from customers formed part of the consideration for excisable goods.

Analysis: The delivery charges were reflected in the invoices, but on the facts found they did not constitute part of the sale consideration. Once the delivery charges were excluded from consideration, the foundation for the demand of interest and penalty was absent. The absence of suppression was also relevant to the sustainability of the penal consequences.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the entire Order-in-Original despite the assessee not pressing the challenge to the duty demand before it.

Analysis: The Tribunal could not have allowed the appeal in its entirety so as to set aside the duty demand as well, particularly when the assessee had not pressed that part of the challenge. The order therefore required modification to the extent it extended beyond the issues legitimately open for decision. However, the setting aside of interest and penalty was sustained because the demand rested on the characterisation of delivery charges as consideration, which was not accepted on merits.

Conclusion: The issue is answered partly in favour of the Revenue and partly against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of correcting the Tribunal's overbroad disposal, while the relief from interest and penalty was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Delivery charges that do not form part of the sale consideration cannot sustain demands of interest and penalty, and an appellate forum should not set aside an entire original order beyond the scope of the issue actually pressed before it.

---