Proper Service in Liquidation: Notices to Official Liquidator, Not Managing Director

The Court allowed the appeal by the Cooperative Spinning Mill in liquidation, setting aside CESTAT's rejection of condonation of delay. It held that notices should have been served on the Official Liquidator, not the Managing Director, during liquidation. The appeal was directed to proceed on payment of costs, emphasizing the significance of proper service during liquidation and communication with the authorized officer.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
2. Service of notices on the Managing Director instead of the Official Liquidator of the petitioner Cooperative Spinning Mill.
3. Rejection of condonation of delay and subsequent appeals by CESTAT.

Analysis:

1. The writ petition was filed challenging the order of CESTAT refusing to condone the delay of 1831 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner, a Cooperative Spinning Mill in liquidation, had its appeal rejected due to the delay. The Court noted the delay and the grounds for refusal to condone it.

2. The petitioner argued that notices should have been served on the Official Liquidator instead of the Managing Director, as the company was in liquidation. The Court agreed that service on the Managing Director did not amount to due service on the company, as the Official Liquidator was the authorized officer during liquidation. The Court directed the payment of costs to set aside CESTAT's order and allowed the appeal to be entertained.

3. The Court found that since notices were served only on the Managing Director, the Official Liquidator could not have had sufficient knowledge of the service. Therefore, the Court set aside CESTAT's order rejecting the application to condone the delay and allowed the appeal to proceed on payment of costs. The appeal was to be decided on its merits and in accordance with the law by CESTAT.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs in the circumstances. The Court's decision highlighted the importance of proper service of notices during liquidation proceedings and the need to consider the authorized officer for communication in such situations.

---