Valid service by refusal defeats recall of ex parte order where the appeal was considered on merits.

Service of hearing notice was treated as valid where the envelope showed refusal of acceptance, so separate service on counsel was not required merely because the appellant did not receive the notice personally. The Tribunal also found that the grounds in the appeal memo had already been considered on merits, so there was no substantive denial of hearing. The authority relied on by the appellant was distinguished because the notice here was refused, not left unserved. The request to recall the ex parte order and restore the appeal was therefore not accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal should recall the ex parte order and restore the appeal on the ground that notice of hearing was not served on the appellant's counsel and that the appeal had allegedly not been considered on merits.

Analysis: Notice had been sent to the appellant and the envelope showed refusal of acceptance. In such circumstances, service on counsel was not essential merely because the appellant did not receive counsel's notice. The Tribunal further found that the appeal memo grounds had been considered on merits and there was no denial of hearing in substance. The authority cited by the appellant was distinguished because, in the present case, the notice was not unserved but was refused by the appellant.

Conclusion: The request for recall of the order and restoration of the appeal was not accepted.

---