ORDER 1. Shri Kohali, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. Admit. 2. Shri Neema, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India was present yesterday and was requested to take a copy of this petition and make his submissions. Accordingly, he had made his submissions purely confining to the question of law on the matter of grant of injunction. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 6-2-1992 filed as Annexure-G to the petition. 4. Admittedly the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Indore respondent No. 2. He also prayed for staying the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner on account of wrongly availing of Modvat credit on certain goods as mentioned in the order Annexure G. Aggrieved by this refusal of stay the petitioner has now approached this Court. 5. The main ground of refusal is that the appellate authority did not find any prima facie case in favour of the appellant-petitioner. Shri Kohali, however, referring to Annexure-E pointed out that these very chemicals used for pretreatment of parts and accessories of motor vehicles prior to painting and for which declarations have been made and have been held and treated to be input eligible for credit by the same appellate authority-respondent No. 2. The other Item C02 gas on which Modvat credit has been denied has similarly been treated to be an item on which Modvat credit has been granted as per Annexure-F. 6. If these two items are taken into consideration, the only other factor which remains to be considered is that of certain procedural irregularities alleged to have been committed in making the declaration, but that too has been explained by Shri Kohali that instead of specifically describing the constituents of a particular part have been described in general terms. 7. Considering the above documents Annexures E and F, and the submissions made by the learned counsel, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioner has no prima facie case, a dominant factor in considering grant of stay or interim injunction. 7. Considering the above documents Annexures E and F, and the submissions made by the learned counsel, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioner has no prima facie case, a dominant factor in considering grant of stay or interim injunction. Although it was urged by Shri Neema that all the three requirements, balance of convenience and irreparable injury along with prima facie case must exist in order to grant interim injunction in favour of a party, the dominant consideration in such matters is existence of aprima facie case in favour of party claiming injunction. Admittedly there are similar orders staying recovery proceedings during pendency of appeal passed by the same appellate authority and they have been placed on record. The mere fact that the amount involved in the present appeal is rather large would not by itself alter or modify the principle of grant of injunction. 8. In the circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, it is directed that the recovery proceedings in pursuance of wrong availing of modvat credit shall remain stayed until disposal of appeal preferred by the petitioner, and pending before the respondent. The respondent is directed to decide the same within a period of three months from today. The order as passed above shall expire with the disposal of this appeal. With this direction this petition itself is disposed of with no orders as to costs.