Dismissal of Appellant's Restoration Application due to Non-Receipt of Hearing Notice

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous application for restoration of an appeal that was dismissed ex parte due to non-receipt of the hearing notice. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence to suggest the notice was undelivered, presuming that the appellant had received it. As the appellant failed to provide positive evidence of non-receipt, their claim was not accepted, leading to the dismissal of the restoration application.

---

---

Issues: Restoration of appeal dismissed ex parte due to non-receipt of hearing notice.

In this case, the appellant filed a miscellaneous application for the restoration of an appeal (No. ST/672/2008) which had been dismissed ex parte. The appellant claimed that they did not receive the hearing notice for the appeal scheduled on 21-2-2014, resulting in their absence during the hearing. The appellant's counsel argued that despite being present on previous hearing dates, the matter was adjourned, and they only learned about the dismissal after receiving the order dated 21-2-2014 on 27-3-2014. The appellant requested the recall of the final order and restoration of the appeal for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the merit and limitation aspects of the case.

The Department Representative opposed the restoration application, stating that the notice for the hearing on 21-2-2014 had been sent via Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due on 8-1-2014 and was not returned undelivered. The Department Representative argued that the final order was passed after considering the merits of the case and was in line with a Larger Bench Judgment of the Tribunal. It was contended that the extended limitation period was correctly invoked, and there was no justification for recalling the final order and restoring the appeal for a fresh hearing.

After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that the notice for the hearing scheduled on 21-2-2014 was issued on 17-1-2014 via Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due. Since there was no evidence to suggest that the notice was undelivered, it was presumed that the appellant had received the notice. The Tribunal emphasized that if the appellant disputed the receipt of the notice, the burden of proof lay with them to provide positive evidence of non-receipt. As the appellant failed to produce such evidence, their claim of non-receipt of the notice was not accepted, leading to the dismissal of the miscellaneous application for the restoration of the appeal.

---