Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

Simplex Electronics Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Simplex Electronics vs Collector of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 27, 1998
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/13336

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Simplex Electronics

Respondent

Collector of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(1998)(101)ELT720TriDel

Excerpt

1. shri k.v. parmar, learned consultant submits that the appearance on 16-1-1997 could not be entered by the appellants/applicants because they had not received the notice of hearing. he also submits that they did not receive even the order of dismissing their appeal for default.this has possibly happened due to shifting of their factory to gandhinagar. in fact they had given the change in address as far back as in 1989. in the aforesaid circumstances, he prays for allowing the application for restoration of the appeal.2. ld. jdr shri m. ali leaves the matter to the discretion of the bench.3. considered. roa application is allowed in the aforesaid circumstances. registry should take note of the new address mentioned in their present roa application for future correspondence, if any.appeal is restored to its original number and is fixed for hearing on 6-7-1998. no notice.

Full Judgment

1. Shri K.V. Parmar, learned Consultant submits that the appearance on 16-1-1997 could not be entered by the appellants/applicants because they had not received the notice of hearing. He also submits that they did not receive even the order of dismissing their appeal for default.

This has possibly happened due to shifting of their factory to Gandhinagar. In fact they had given the change in address as far back as in 1989. In the aforesaid circumstances, he prays for allowing the application for restoration of the appeal.

2. Ld. JDR Shri M. Ali leaves the matter to the discretion of the Bench.

3. Considered. ROA application is allowed in the aforesaid circumstances. Registry should take note of the new address mentioned in their present ROA application for future correspondence, if any.

Appeal is restored to its original number and is fixed for hearing on 6-7-1998. No notice.

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Simplex Electronics vs Collector of Central Excise Same Subject MRTP
MRTP

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales