M/S. Mats Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1149682
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided OnMar-07-2014
Case NumberST/COD/42397 of 2013 & ST/S/42398 of 2013 & ST/42446 of 2013 (Arising Out of Order-in-Appeal No. 80 of 2013 (M-ST) dated 19.2.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
JudgeP.K. DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AppellantM/S. Mats Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
RespondentCommissioner of Service Tax, Chennai
Excerpt:
1. the applicant has filed this application for condoning the delay of 196 days involved in the filing of the appeal. 2. the learned counsel submits that the applicant is a small enterprise. he further submits that the director of the applicant-company was looking after the entire work. he submits that the directors daughter expired on 16.11.2013 at mangalore and therefore he proceeded to mangalore to settle his daughters family and hence there was a delay in filing the appeal. apart from that, the concerned employee of the applicant-company left the job without intimating the receipt of the order. 3. on the other hand, the learned ar submits that the directors daughter expired on 16.11.2012 and the impugned order was received by the applicant on 21.2.2013. he submits that the death of the directors daughter has no relevance in the facts of the present case. 4. after hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, i find force in the submission of the learned ar for revenue. it is seen that the directors daughter expired on 16.11.2012 at mangalore. the applicant received the impugned order on 21.2.2013. hence, the death of the directors daughter has no relevance for condoning the delay of filing the appeal. the submission of the learned counsel that the concerned employee left the job also cannot be a reason for the delay in filing the appeal. 5. in view of the above, i do not find any merit for condoning the delay of 196 days involved in the filing of the appeal. accordingly, the cod application is dismissed. consequently, the appeal along with stay application is also dismissed.
Judgment:

1. The applicant has filed this application for condoning the delay of 196 days involved in the filing of the appeal.

2. The learned counsel submits that the applicant is a small enterprise. He further submits that the Director of the applicant-company was looking after the entire work. He submits that the Directors daughter expired on 16.11.2013 at Mangalore and therefore he proceeded to Mangalore to settle his daughters family and hence there was a delay in filing the appeal. Apart from that, the concerned employee of the applicant-company left the job without intimating the receipt of the order.

3. On the other hand, the learned AR submits that the Directors daughter expired on 16.11.2012 and the impugned order was received by the applicant on 21.2.2013. He submits that the death of the Directors daughter has no relevance in the facts of the present case.

4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find force in the submission of the learned AR for Revenue. It is seen that the Directors daughter expired on 16.11.2012 at Mangalore. The applicant received the impugned order on 21.2.2013. Hence, the death of the Directors daughter has no relevance for condoning the delay of filing the appeal. The submission of the learned counsel that the concerned employee left the job also cannot be a reason for the delay in filing the appeal.

5. In view of the above, I do not find any merit for condoning the delay of 196 days involved in the filing of the appeal. Accordingly, the COD application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal along with stay application is also dismissed.