CX - During the period of dispute, the Revenue alleged that the assessee company had indulged in clandestine clearance of finished goods - Duty demand was raised - Penalty under Rule 26 of the CER 2002 was imposed on the partner of the assessee's partnership firm.

Held: The appeal of the partnership firm is dismissed as not pressed - Regarding the firm's partner, it is settled principle that where the partnership firm has been penalized, no separate penalty can be imposed on the partner - Hence the penalty imposed u/r 26 of CER 2002 is set aside: CESTAT (Para 1,4)

- Assessees' appeals partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

CX - The assessee companies manufacture detergent & detergent soap - Pursuant to investigation, the Department raised duty demand - Upon remand by the Tribunal, the adjudicating authority raised duty demand and also imposed penalty - Further, some quantity of detegent cakes were confiscated with option of redemption fine being given - The assessee filed the present appeal contesting such demands on grounds that its plea for reduction of duty liability was not considered.

Held: The assessee pled that the quantities of LAB used for making exempted products were not considered when raising duty demand - However, considering the relevant findings of the adjudicating authority, it is seen that the evidence relied on by the assessees was produced beyond the period of demand - It is also noted that the present matter stretched on for 25 years, was adjudicated on 4 occasions and was heard before the Tribunal 3 times - Yet the assessees could not produce satisfactory evidence to bolster their claim, which leads to the conclusion that no such exempted clearances took place - The findings of the O-i-O in this regard are sustained, as is the duty demanded - Besides, the penalties imposed on them merit reduction considering that the quantum of duty demands were whittled down & since the assessees indulged in such modus operandi due to incorrect advice - Hence their appeals are partly allowed: CESTAT (Para 1,2,5.4,5.5,5.7)

- Assessees' appeals partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

CX - The assessee company is engaged in manaufacturing Sago & Starch - During investigation launched against it, the assessee paid some amount of duty - Post investigation, the Department raised duty demand - The assessee then claimed refund of the difference between the duty paid prior to investigation & the demand raised afterwards - The original adjudicating authority sanctioned such refund - However, the same was set aside by the Commr.(A) on grounds that it was time-barred.

Held: The assessee realised that it had paid duty in excess only when the order raising duty demand was passed - Hence the refund claim is well-within the due date - Department's contention that the payment of last intallment is relevant date is unfounded: CESTAT (Para 1,5)

- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT