Proper service and natural justice govern appellate proceedings; ex parte orders without effective notice were remanded for rehearing.

Presumption of service from postal dispatch applies only when the order is sent to the correct address, and that presumption was rebutted here because the impugned orders were addressed to an address where the managing director was not residing and there was no reliable proof of effective service. The appeal was therefore treated as within time, making the delay-condonation application infructuous. Ex parte appellate orders passed without effective notice, hearing, or communication of the pre-deposit direction were set aside, and the matters were remanded for fresh decision after granting the appellants a proper opportunity of hearing in accordance with natural justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appeal was barred by limitation or whether service of the impugned order on the appellants in December 2004 stood established; (ii) whether the ex parte appellate orders, passed without effective hearing and without compliance with pre-deposit requirements, warranted remand for fresh decision.

Issue (i): whether the appeal was barred by limitation or whether service of the impugned order on the appellants in December 2004 stood established.

Analysis: The presumption of service arising from dispatch by post applies only where the order is properly addressed and sent to the correct address. On the record, the impugned orders had been sent to an address at which the managing director was not residing at the relevant time, while the appellants showed a different residential address for that period. The surrounding circumstances, including returned hearing notices and absence of evidence of effective service at the correct address, rebutted any presumption of due service in December 2004.

Conclusion: The order was not proved to have been served in December 2004, and the appeal was treated as in time; the condonation application was therefore rejected as infructuous.

Issue (ii): whether the ex parte appellate orders, passed without effective hearing and without compliance with pre-deposit requirements, warranted remand for fresh decision.

Analysis: The impugned appellate orders were passed without hearing the appellants and without effective communication of the hearing notices or the pre-deposit direction. In such a situation, the requirement of pre-deposit was dispensed with to enable hearing of the appeal, and the matter required reconsideration after affording a proper opportunity of hearing in accordance with natural justice.

Conclusion: The appeals were remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision after hearing the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal held that service of the appellate orders was not established for the earlier date, declined delay condonation as unnecessary, and set aside the ex parte disposal by directing a fresh hearing and reconsideration.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory order is not treated as duly served unless dispatch to the correct address is established, and an ex parte appellate order passed without effective notice and hearing is liable to be remanded for fresh adjudication consistent with natural justice.

---