Disposed

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune II v. Niraj Chandra

Bombay HC5 May 2009WP/679/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of three writ petitions challenging the rejection of condonation of delay applications. The Court held that since the Board's permission to prefer appeals was granted only in relation to one specific respondent (M/s. Eagle Engineering Works), appeals filed against other respondents were not maintainable, rendering the issue of condonation of delay moot.

What did the court decide?

The petitions were disposed of by holding them non-maintainable regarding respondents not covered by the Board's specific sanction.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune II Vs Niraj Chandra — Bombay HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 679 of 2009

¶5

 WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 688 OF 2009

¶7

 WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITIION NO. 690 OF 2009

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 679 OF 2009

¶10

 Commissioner of Central Excise ..Petitioner

¶11

 Versus

¶12

 Shri Niraj Chandra, Chief Executive

¶13

 of M/s. Kay Iron Works Ltd. ..Respondent

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 688 OF 2009

¶15

 Commissioner of Central Excise ..Petitioner

¶16

 Versus

¶17

 M/s. Kay Iron Works Ltd. ..Respondent

¶18

WRIT PETITION NO. 690 OF 2009

¶19

 Commissioner of Central Excise ..Petitioner

¶20

 Versus

¶21

¶22

 Shri Vijay R.Kulkarni,

¶23

 Prop. M/s. Eagle Engg. Works. ..Respondent

¶24

 Mr. A.S.Rao for the petitioners (in all matters).

¶25

 Mr. V.Sreedharan i/b. M/s. PDS Legal for the

¶26

 respondents (in all matters)

¶27

CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND

¶28

 J.H.BHATIA,JJ.

¶29

 DATE: 5th May, 2009.

¶30

P.C.

¶31

 1. The petitioner herein haS approached this Court
 to impugn the order of the Tribunal whereby the
 application for condonation of delay in preferring the
 appeal before the Tribunal had been rejected.

¶32

 2. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against
 M/s. Eagle Engineering Works. Thereafter, according to
 the learned Counsel, on an opinion expressed by the
 Tribunal, they had preferred three other appeals which
 were much beyond the period of limitation. They applied
 for condonation of delay and that was rejected. In the
 light of that, the present three petitions were filed.

¶33

¶34

 3. On behalf of the Respondents, the learned

¶35

 Counsel has raised an objection that the Board had
 granted permission only to prefer an appeal insofar as
 M/s. Eagle Engineering Works, Satara, is concerned.
 The subject which the Board considered was "the case of
 M/s. Eagle Engineering Works, Satara." We had also
 called for the original record. We find that permission
 granted by the Board is in terms of what was proposed by
 the revenue in the case of M/s.Eagle Engineering Works.

¶36

 4. On behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel
 submits that from the grounds it will be clear that it
 was against the show cause notice. In our opinion, when
 a body has to exercise jurisdiction, it has to apply its
 mind to what was placed before it and what it has
 understood. The permission was sought for preferring an
 appeal against M/s. Eagle Engineering Works. The
 permission is granted to file an appeal against M/s.
 Eagle Engineering Works. We do not find in the order of
 sanction any independent application of mind insofar as
 the other Respondents are concerned. In our opinion,
 therefore, on this count itself, the appeals filed are
 not maintainable and, consequently, the question of
 delay would also have not arisen.

¶37

 5. We make it clear that in the event the Board

¶38

¶39

 grants permission to prefer an appeal, then the

¶40

 dismissal of the condonation of delay application will
 not stand in the way. It will be open to the petitioner
 herein to apply afresh. We also make it clear that the
 sanction, if any, will be subject to the statutory
 provisions of Section 35E(3) of the Central Excise
 Act,1944.

¶41

 With the above observations, Petitions disposed

¶42

of.

¶43

(J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune II v. Niraj Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune II v. Niraj Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Paresh Patinum Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Hotel Sahil Ltd. Vs a.K.Thata and Anr.

Chandrakant Bhalchandra Garware Vs the Union of India and Ors.

State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Anil Sitaram Ajgaonkar and 5 Ors.

Commissionr of Customs (G) Mumbai Vs M/S. Jasingh Clearing Agency