2005 (11) TMI 112 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay of 265 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 27-2-2004.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal dated 27-2-2004. Despite the absence of any representation from the Respondents, there was a request to decide the matter on merit. The learned D.R. argued that the Order-in-Appeal was passed on technical grounds against the department, emphasizing a strong prima facie case for the department. Reference was made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and State of Nagaland v. Lipok A.O. The Tribunal considered the submissions and record, noting the department's contention that they became aware of a relevant decision in January 2005. However, the Tribunal found this explanation unreasonable, stating that responsible Government Officers should stay updated with legal developments, as decisions of the Tribunal are reported and circulated.

The Tribunal referred to the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd., where it was held that an appeal should not be filed solely to take advantage of subsequent decisions, emphasizing the need for a change in legal position to justify late filing. Additionally, the Tribunal cited the case of Virdy Bros., where it was ruled that delay in filing an appeal to benefit from a subsequent Tribunal decision would not be condoned. In this case, the Tribunal concluded that the application for condonation of delay was filed solely to exploit a subsequent decision, which was deemed contrary to the law. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely filing of appeals and the need for valid justifications for delays. It underscores the responsibility of Government Officers to stay informed about legal developments and act in accordance with the law. The decision also emphasizes that appeals should not be filed solely to take advantage of subsequent decisions, but rather based on a genuine change in legal position.