TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not acceptable for the reason that a 5 Member Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Chand Sri Gopal - [2010 (11) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [2013 (5) TMI 675 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that in order to claim the benefit under the law, substantial compliance is not enough and the procedures prescribed in the statute should be mandatorily followed. This ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court prevails over the case laws - Decided against assessee. - E/895/08 - Final Order No. A/1200/2014-WZB/C-IV(SMB) - Dated:- 13-5-2014 - P R Chandrasekharan, J. For the Appellant : Shri Mihir Mehta, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri D.D. Joshi, Supdt. (AR) PER : P R Chandrasekharan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present case, the show-cause notice has been issued in 1994 vide notice dated 7.12.1994, but the adjudication has been done only vide order dated 22.2.2007 i.e., after a lapse of 12 years. Therefore, on this ground alone, the proceedings need to be set aside and the appeal allowed. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shirish Harshavadan Shah Vs. Deputy Director, ED, Mumbai - 2010 (254) ELT 259 (Bom.). In view of the above, he pleads for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. 3. The learned Supdt. (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the reasoning adopted by the lower authorities and relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of DSM Sugar Vs. Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutorily prescribed. In the present case, I notice that documents which have been submitted are not those specified in the law. Therefore, the appellant cannot take CENVAT Credit on the strength of such documents. 5.1 As regards the second argument that there was inordinate delay on part of the department initiating the adjudication proceedings and the reliance placed on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in the Shirish Harshavadan Shah (supra). I note that this point has not been raised either before the adjudicating authority or before the lower appellate authority. Having failed to raise this ground before the adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority and having participated in and acquiesced to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
