COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to filing of this appeal by the Revenue are, in brief, as under.

(2.) SHRI B.B. Sharma, the learned Departmental Representative assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal in the Revenue's appeal and Pleaded that the availability of Cenvat credit would be governed by the and pleaded of the Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules according to which the Cenvat credit in respect of input services would be allowed only on or after the date on which the payment is made of the value of input service, that the Board's Circular dated 30th April 2010 which is of a date subsequent to the period of dispute is also contrary to the express provisions of Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, that since at the time of availing the Cenvat credit, part of the value of the service received by the respondent had no, been paid by them, Cenvat credit in respect of that part of the value of service would not be admissible and that the Board's Circular cannot be beyond the provisions of the rule. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is incorrect.

(3.) I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records.