MPHASIS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is filed by the applicant for condoning a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

(2.) D. ChartereD Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is a Delay of 53 Days in filing the appeal anD submits that the reason for Delay is (i) Employee hanDling the service tax matters incluDing the subject matter tenDereD his resignation on 23 -11 -2009 anD was relieveD from Duty w.e.f. 29 -1 -2010, (ii) His successor also tenDereD his resignation on 5 -2 -2010 anD was relieveD from Duty w.e.f. 16 -4 -2010, (iii) Subsequent to these two resignations, the members of the tax team were not maDe aware or briefeD about the aDjuDication proceeDings or the receipt of the OrDer -in -Original Dt. 3 -2 -2010 (serveD on the Counsel on 15 -2 -2010 anD receiveD by the applicant's inwarD section) anD (iv) that the applicant was not aware of the aDjuDication proceeDings till the receipt of the recovery notice Dt. 15 -6 -2010.

(3.) LD . SDR on the other hand would submit that on the last hearing before this Bench, the Bench had directed the Jt. CDR office to produce record regarding the dispatch of the order of the appellant/applicant. She produced the copy of the Registered AD Register maintained by the office of the CCE -II, Bangalore Commissionerate. It is her submission that it was for the applicant to conduct his business in a proper form and there being an acceptance of receipt of the Order -in -Original in the office of the Counsel representing them before the authorities, would itself indicate that the applicant should have put his wheels in order and filed the appeal within time as provided under law. She would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CCE, Ludhiana v. Mohan Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. [2010 (255) E.L.T. 321 (P&H)] for the proposition that once the order is sent by Registered Post with AD, it is sufficient for the Department and it is deemed to be served on the assessee. It is her submission that the Department has served the Order -in -Original on the appellant and they should have taken steps to file the appeal in time.