TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 1017
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed by the Commissioner for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Commissioner by the impugned order had disallowed CENVAT credit amounting Rs. 10,21,04,601/- and ordered for its recovery from the appellant under rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 [Credit Rules] read with the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 [Finance Act ]. The Commissioner also imposed penalty of the same amount upon the appellant under rule 15(3) of the Credit Rules. 2. In the application filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal it has been stated that CENVAT credit of Rs. 10,21,04,601/- had been availed by the appellant during the course of construction of shopping malls/ complex and utilization of it by the appellant under t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....VAT credit of Rs. 10,16,17,129/- had been reversed; (ix) The Department was also informed that due to the financial crisis, the possession of the mall was taken and an order against the appellant was also passed on October 22, 2016 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and subsequently the mall was sold by auction by J.M Financial Assets Reconstruction Company; (x) A letter dated April 7, 2017 was sent by the Department to J.M. Financial Assets Reconstruction Company seeking certain information. Subsequently, a letter dated June 10, 2019 was also sent by the Department to the auction purchaser to pay the amount due under the order; (xi) On August 6, 2019 the Department wrote a letter to the appellant accepting that the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Shri Krishna Agencies vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi [2017 (358) E.L.T. 136 (Del.) ] and the order dated July 19, 2019 send by the Tribunal in M/s Akbar Travels of India Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Jaipur-I [Service Tax Appeal No. 50932 of 2019 - DB]. 5. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorised representative of the Department have been considered. 6. The issue in this appeal is regarding the CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 10,21,04,601/- claimed by the appellant on capital goods and services used in construction of the mall. It is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11. What impressed the Delhi High Court was the fact that though the appeal that was filed before the Tribunal in 2012 was returned to the learned counsel, but the appeal was subsequently filed in 2017 and the only explanation offered was that grave consequences will result to the appellant if the appeal was not entertained. It is in such circumstances that the delay condonation application was rejected. 8. In Akbar travels, the Tribunal observed as follows: "7. The appellant has miserably failed to explain why there was an inordinate delay of 3 years and 10 months in filing the appeal. It is not in dispute that the appellant had received the order dated 15 December, 2014 on 22 December, 2014. As to who has to take a decision fo....