Anandi Lal Surendra Kumar Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Anandi Lal Surendra Kumar vs Collector of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 22, 1994

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/8077

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/8077
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Dec 22, 1994
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anandi Lal Surendra Kumar

Respondent

Collector of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (1995)(76)ELT118TriDel

Excerpt

1. this application for restoration of appeal was dismissed on earlier occasion. shri sanjeev kumar, manager of the company submits that this application was dismissed on earlier occasion for non-appearance. he submits that on last occasion they could not appear because of disturbances in u.p. where roads were blocked and therefore requests for restoration of appeal to some convenient date.3. i find that appeal was dismissed for non-appearance but the appellants now explain that because of traffic jam they could not present themselves which was beyond their control. in view of the above circumstances the appeal be restored to its original number and be listed in due course.

Full Judgment

1. This application for restoration of appeal was dismissed on earlier occasion. Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Manager of the Company submits that this application was dismissed on earlier occasion for non-appearance. He submits that on last occasion they could not appear because of disturbances in U.P. where roads were blocked and therefore requests for restoration of appeal to some convenient date.

3. I find that appeal was dismissed for non-appearance but the appellants now explain that because of traffic jam they could not present themselves which was beyond their control. In view of the above circumstances the appeal be restored to its original number and be listed in due course.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Anandi Lal Surendra Kumar vs Collector of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition