1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 679 of 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 679 of 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 679 of 2009 WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 688 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 688 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 688 OF 2009 WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITIION NO. 690 OF 2009 WRIT PETITIION NO. 690 OF 2009 WRIT PETITIION NO. 690 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 679 OF 2009 Commissioner of Central Excise ..Petitioner Versus Shri Niraj Chandra, Chief Executive of M/s. Kay Iron Works Ltd. ..Respondent WRIT PETITION NO. 688 OF 2009 Commissioner of Central Excise ..Petitioner Versus M/s. Kay Iron Works Ltd. ..Respondent WRIT PETITION NO. 690 OF 2009 Commissioner of Central Excise ..Petitioner Versus 2 Shri Vijay R.Kulkarni, Prop. M/s. Eagle Engg. Works. ..Respondent Mr. A.S.Rao for the petitioners (in all matters). Mr. V.Sreedharan i/b. M/s. PDS Legal for the respondents (in all matters) CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA,JJ. J.H.BHATIA,JJ. J.H.BHATIA,JJ. DATE: 5th May, 2009. DATE: 5th May, 2009. DATE: 5th May, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 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. 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. 3 3. On behalf of the Respondents, the learned 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. 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. 5. We make it clear that in the event the Board 4 grants permission to prefer an appeal, then the 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. With the above observations, Petitions disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)