Valid service at address on record defeats restoration where no proved intimation of changed address was given.

Notice served at the address furnished in the memorandum of appeal remained valid where the appellant failed to prove a specific, communicated request to serve process at a fresh address. The later assertion of change of address did not establish receipt of any intimation by the registry, so the Tribunal was entitled to rely on the address already on record. On that basis, the appellant could not show lapse in service or denial of natural justice, and restoration of the appeal was rightly refused. Non-appearance was treated as attributable to the appellant's own failure to ensure effective intimation of the changed address.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal deserved restoration on the ground that notice of hearing was not effectively served at the appellant's changed address, and whether denial of restoration amounted to violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The appellant asserted that its address had changed and that a later communication had informed the Tribunal, but no receipt of that letter by the registry was proved. The notice had been sent to the address shown in the memorandum of appeal, and in the absence of a specific intimation directing service at a fresh address, the registry was entitled to serve notice at the address already furnished for that purpose. A later letter showing another address did not establish that it was communicated as the operative service address.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to show any lapse in service of notice or denial of natural justice, and restoration of the appeal was rightly refused.

Final Conclusion: The request for restoration was rejected and the appeal remained dismissed for non-appearance caused by the appellant's own failure to ensure proper intimation of the changed address.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no specific communication is proved intimating a fresh address for service, notice served at the address furnished in the appeal memorandum is valid and non-appearance attributable to the appellant does not amount to breach of natural justice.

---