Presumption of service by post can be rebutted by contrary evidence, keeping the appeal within time and maintainable.

Dispatch of an order by speed post does not conclusively prove service on the addressee where the delivery signature does not match the employees named in the supporting certificate. Presumptive service from dispatch can be rebutted by circumstantial evidence showing non-delivery to the proper recipient. On the material before it, the Tribunal accepted that the appeal was filed within the prescribed time, treated it as maintainable, and rejected the objection that the miscellaneous application had become infructuous.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was filed within time and was maintainable in view of the disputed service of the impugned order, so as to render the application for condonation of delay infructuous.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that dispatch of the order by speed post did not, by itself, conclusively establish service on the addressee where the signature on the delivery manifest did not match the names of the employees shown in the certificate relied upon by the applicant. It distinguished the authorities cited on service by post and noted that, although dispatch may raise a presumption of service, that presumption can be rebutted by circumstantial evidence showing non-delivery to the proper recipient. On the material on record, the Tribunal accepted the applicant's case that the appeal had been filed within the prescribed time and was therefore maintainable.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be in time and maintainable, and the objection that the miscellaneous application had become infructuous was rejected.

---