2008 (7) TMI 821

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... jay Kumar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. The applicant filed this application for recalling the ex parte Final Order dated 11-4-2008. The contention of the applicant is that on the date of hearing, ld. Counsel appeared before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a writ petition and when he reached the Tribunal the case was already decided and immediately thereaf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bench, therefore, it is not a case for imposition of penalty. 3. The ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that as the issue settled by the Larger Bench and applicant has wrongly claimed the abatement in respect of durable and returnable packing, therefore, it is a case for imposition of penalty. 4. We find that Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics (supra) held th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... his, Final Order dated 11-4-2008 is recalled to the extent of leviability of penalty only. 6. As prior to the decision of Larger Bench in the case of Vikram Detergent (supra), there are divergent views, therefore, it is not a case for imposition of penalty. The penalty imposed on the applicant is set aside. Otherwise, on merits the impugned order in respect of demand is upheld. The application i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X