Tribunal rules on demands, penalties reduced, some issues dropped.

The tribunal upheld demands related to issues 1, 2, and 3 concerning the non-inclusion of certain charges in the assessable value and inadmissible Cenvat credits, reducing penalties to 50%. For issue 4, the demand was upheld but the penalty was not sustained due to prior department knowledge. Issue 5 was dropped due to an extended time limit in an amended notification. The impugned orders were modified accordingly, with penalties adjusted as per the tribunal's decisions.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Non inclusion of value of Hummali/Tulai charges in the assessable value
2. Non inclusion of amount charged on the basis of debit notes in the assessable value
3. Claiming of Cenvat credit of Customs Education cess and Customs Secondary & Higher Education Cess
4. Wrong availment of Cenvat Credit on outward freight
5. Wrong availment of Cenvat Credit on invoice after six months of the issue of invoice

Analysis:

1. Non inclusion of value of Hummali/Tulai charges in the assessable value:
The demand was confirmed due to extra charges collected by the appellant on Hammali/Tulai, not included in the assessable value for Central Excise duty. The appellant contested the demand on the grounds of limitation, stating no wilful suppression. However, the tribunal upheld the demand, stating the charges should be included in the transaction value. The penalty was reduced to 50%.

2. Non inclusion of amount charged on the basis of debit notes in the assessable value:
The demand was confirmed for extra charges collected through debit notes. The appellant contested based on limitation, but the tribunal upheld the demand, reducing the penalty to 50%.

3. Claiming of Cenvat credit of Customs Education cess and Customs Secondary & Higher Education Cess:
The demand was confirmed as the credits were not admissible under Cenvat Credit Rules. The tribunal upheld the demand, reducing the penalty to 50%.

4. Wrong availment of Cenvat Credit on outward freight:
The demand was confirmed for availing Cenvat credit on outward freight beyond the admissible limit. The tribunal upheld the demand, stating the penalty was not sustainable due to prior knowledge by the department.

5. Wrong availment of Cenvat Credit on invoice after six months of the issue of invoice:
The demand was confirmed for availing credit after six months, but the tribunal dropped the demand and penalty citing an amended notification extending the time limit.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld demands related to issues 1, 2, and 3, reducing penalties to 50%. For issue 4, the demand was upheld, but the penalty was deemed not sustainable. Issue 5 was dropped due to the amended notification. The impugned orders were modified accordingly.

---