Condonation of delay fails where postal service is presumed proved and the appellant cannot rebut delivery evidence.

The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The impugned order had been sent by speed post to the appellant's office address, and the acknowledgment card supported service. The appellant's claim that the order was not received because the factory was closed was rejected for want of evidence, and the presumption of service under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was not rebutted. Reliance on delay in posting the application was also found irrelevant because no inordinate delay before the Bench was shown. The delay was not condoned, and the appeal and stay application were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause to justify condonation of the heavy delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The order impugned before the Tribunal had been despatched by speed post to the appellant's office address, and the accompanying acknowledgment card supported the dispatch. In the absence of supporting evidence, the appellant's assertion that the order was not received because the factory was closed was not accepted. The presumption attached to postal service under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was rebuttable, but the appellant failed to rebut it. The further reliance on delay in posting of the application was found irrelevant, as no inordinate delay in posting before the Bench was shown.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed. The stay application also stood dismissed consequentially.

---