HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Advocate for the Appellants and DR for the Respondent.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that the stay of recovery has been ordered on the ground that the credit to that extent was sought to be availed without making full payment of the dues payable to the service provider even though the duty element on the invoices issued by the service provider was fully discharged and credit availed was restricted to the said duty amount. Referring to Rule 4(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the impugned order is sought to be justified by D. R. whereas the learned Advocate for the Appellants has drawn our attention to Circular No. 122/3/2010 -S.T. dated 30 -4 -2010.

(3.) THE Board in the said Circular after taking note of the provision comprised under Rule 4(7) of the said Rules, has observed thus: