2007 (7) TMI 274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of their appeals, their name figures as J.K. Industries. One of applications, moved today on behalf of the assessee, is for recall of our order dated 8-6-2007, which reads thus:  "Adjourned to 25-6-2007 as requested by Advocate on condition that any CENVAT credit taken on the strength of Order-in-Appeal No. 199/2005 is reversed and Range Officer's certificate is produced". The remaining applications are for change of the appellant's name from Vikrant Tyres Ltd./J.K. Industries to J.K, Tyre & Industries Ltd. We take up the latter for consideration first. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the applicants that the name of the company has since been changed to J.K. Tyre & Industries Ltd. as certified by the Registrar of Compani....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....'. 2. The remaining application was filed by the assessee qua respondent in the department's appeal No. E/582/2006. It is in this application that the assessee prays for recall of our order dated 8-6-2007, already reproduced. In support of this application, learned Counsel submits that the Revenue's application for stay of operation of Order-in-Appeal No.,199/2005, dated 27-9-2005 was rejected by this Bench as per Stay Order No.1182-1186/2006, dated 6-12-2006, with the result that the applicant became entitled to enjoy the fruit of the said Order-in-Appeal. It is submitted that learned Commissioner (Appeals), in the said Order-in-Appeal, had set aside, the lower authority's direction for appropriation of an amount of over Rs. 2.08 crores....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s has stood adjourned from time to time at the instance of the applicant. In our stay order dated 6-12-2006, we declined stay of operation of Order-in-Appeal No. 199/2005 and dismissed the Revenue's stay application, and also granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the amount ordered to be appropriated. As rightly pointed out by learned SDR, the assessee withheld a crucial fact while obtaining the relief of waiver and stay on 6-12-2006. This fact is that they had since taken re-credit of Rs. 2.04 crores in their CENVAT account on the strength of Order-in-Appeal No. 199/2005. They have no justification for having taken credit on their own on the strength of an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which is the ....