Full Judgment
2. None appeared on behalf of the Respondents despite notice but there is a request to decide the matter on merit.
3. Learned D.R. submits that this Order-in-Appeal was passed only on technical grounds against the department and as such department has got a very strong prima facie case. She also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and 4. Considered the submissions made by learned D.R. and perused the record. I find that in the application for condonation of delay at point No. 3 the department has said "that the cited order in the case of C.C.E., Nagpur v. Hari Vishnu Packaging reported as has come to the notice of the appellants very recently i.e. in the month of January, 2005." 1 find that on the part of a responsible Government Officer, this contention that the decision of this Tribunal came to his knowledge in January, 2005, cannot be accepted. The officers are required to update knowledge, should have acted according to the law, since the cases decided by the Tribunal are reported and circulated to officers.
5. Further, I find that in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. this Tribunal has held that "appeal has been filed only after legal position changed to qualify for subsequent decisions and not just because to justify delay in late filing of appeal." Further, 1 also find that this Tribunal in the case of Virdy Bros., as has also held that the appeal belatedly filed only to take advantage of subsequent decision of the Tribunal, delay not condoned. I find that this application for condonation of delay has been filed only to take advantage of the subsequent decision of this Tribunal which is not in connosance of law. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay dismissed.