THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 8162 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, dated 4.12.2008 refusing to condone the delay of 1831 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner Cooperative Spinning Mill went into liquidation, and an Official Liquidator was appointed, to manage its affairs, in the year 2000. While matters stood thus, the order of the original authority was served on the Managing Director of the petitioner company on 21.3.2003. On the ground that, despite service of notice on the Managing Director, the appal was not filed within time, but with an inordinate delay of 1831 days, the second respondent refused to condone the delay and rejected both the stay applications and the appeals. Before this court, Sri Ch.Shanmukha Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, as the petitioner – Cooperative Society is in liquidation and an Official Liquidator has been appointed to manage its affairs, notices ought to have been served on the Official Liquidator, and not on the Managing Director of the Company; and service of notices on the Managing Director would not amount to due service on the petitioner company, since, on commencement of liquidation proceedings, the authorized officer is only the Official Liquidator. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the fact that an Official Liquidator was appointed in the year 2000 is admitted. Since the order itself records that notices were served only on the Managing Director of the company on 21.3.2003 and, since the Official Liquidator could not have had sufficient knowledge of service of notice on the Managing Director, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order of the CESTAT rejecting the application to condone the delay of 1831 days, on payment of costs of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) within a period of four weeks from today to the central government. On proof of payment of costs, the CESTAT shall entertain the appeal, and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. In the circumstances, no order as to costs. Date: 14-06-2010 _____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Tjs/asp