Effective communication for appeal limitation under excise law requires proof of receipt; postal presumptions were rebutted here.

For filing an appeal under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, limitation starts only when the order is effectively communicated to the Collector so he can exercise the right of appeal. The usual presumptions of service by post under the General Clauses Act, the Post Office Act and the Evidence Act are rebuttable, and here they were rebutted by an uncontroverted affidavit of non-receipt. As receipt was not proved, the limitation period had not begun for the main and supplementary appeals, and no condonation of delay was required. The stay applications, however, did not survive and were dismissed as infructuous.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the purpose of filing an appeal under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, limitation begins when the order is posted or only when it is actually communicated to and received by the Collector; and whether the statutory presumption of service by post stood rebutted on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The expression "communicated" in Section 35B(3) was construed as requiring effective intimation of the order to the Collector so that he may consider and exercise the right of appeal. The normal presumptions arising from Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, Section 3(c) of the Indian Post Office Act, and Section 114 of the Evidence Act were recognised as rebuttable presumptions only. Since the affidavit of the departmental officer stating non-receipt of the order was not controverted, the presumption of service stood effectively rebutted. On that basis, the period of limitation had not commenced to run against the main appeal or the supplementary appeals.

Conclusion: Limitation had not started to run because the order was not shown to have been received by the Collector, and no condonation of delay was required. The stay applications did not survive and were dismissed as infructuous.

---