Case Law Details

Case Name : M/s Affiliated Computetr Services of India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Services Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)
Appeal Number : Appeal No.ST/COD/114/2010, ST/1775/2010: 22/12/2010
Date of Judgement/Order :
Related Assessment Year :

Service Tax – Condonation of delay in filing appeal – Submission of the learned Chartered Accountant that the appellant company had different division and departments situated in the same building at Bangalore and the receipt of the said order in one department was not communicated to the legal department to prefer an appeal, is an argument without merits. It is for the appellant company to arrange his business in a manner that he takes action exercising his legal right of appeal with due diligence.

The argument that the company has got different division in same building may not carry the case any further, as the appellant could have arranged the proper system in place. It seems the appellant had not put in place any system that would have enabled him to exercise his legal right appeal under the law. In the absence of any such proper justification, we are of the considered view that the applicant / appellant has not made out a case for condoning the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal. In view of this, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay as without merits. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE

Appeal No.ST/COD/114/2010
ST/1775/2010

Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.161/2010 Dated: 31.3.2010
Passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore

Date of Decision: 22.12.2010

M/s AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Vs

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE

 

MISC ORDER NO.610/2010
FINAL ORDER NO.1531/2010

Per: M V Ravindran (Oral):

This application is filed by the applicant for the condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.161/2010 dated 31.3.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II) was received by the appellant’s office on 8.4.2010. It is his submission that the order was received in another department though situated in the very same building. It is his submission that on 27.5.2010 concerned person got the order copy of the impugned order and noted the date as 27.5.2010 and the entire file was entrusted to him for drafting the appeal. It is his submission that after preparation of the appeal and other papers and at that time of finalizing the appeal, he as a Chartered Accountant wanted to ascertain the actual date of receipt of the impugned order which was communicated as being not known. He submits that subsequently, he verified the dispatch of the order from the Commissioner (A)’s office which was 6.4.2010 and even if the receipt is taken to have been received after two days of the dispatch of the order, there is a delay of 42 days. He would submit that the delay is due to the confusion in the date of receipt of the order, which was caused due to non-communication of the order to the concerned department and is not without any negligence and in terms of principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji as reported on 1987 (28) ELT 185 (SC) = (2002-IST-76-SC-LMT) will cover the issue and hence, prays for condonation of delay. He would also submit that he has filed an affidavit of Shri Shankara H. Bhandary, Assistant Finance Controller of the appellant/applicant as regards the submissions made by him as above.

4. Learned departmental representative on the other hand would submit that the appellant has not explained the delay satisfactorily and there cannot be any condonation on delay.

5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. On perusal of the records, we find that it is undisputed that the impugned order was received in the appellant/ applicant’s company. The submission of the learned Chartered Accountant that the appellant company had different division and departments situated in the same building at Bangalore and the receipt of the said order in one department was not communicated to the legal department to prefer an appeal, is an argument without merits. It is for the appellant company to arrange his business in a manner that he takes action exercising his legal right of appeal with due diligence. The argument that the company has got different division in same building may not carry the case any further, as the appellant could have arranged the proper system in place. It seems the appellant had not put in place any system that would have enabled him to exercise his legal right appeal under the law. In the absence of any such proper justification, we are of the considered view that the applicant / appellant has not made out a case for condoning the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal. In view of this, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay as without merits. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.

(Pronounced in open Court on 22.12.2010)

NF

More Under Service Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

September 2021
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930