Certificate of posting alone does not prove timely filing; actual receipt or cogent proof of presentation is required.

A certificate of posting was held insufficient to prove that an appeal had been duly presented within limitation under Section 35 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. In the absence of evidence of actual receipt, the appellant had to establish presentation by cogent proof, and a mere assertion that the letter was posted did not discharge that burden. The presumption of correctness under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 supported the Collector's statement that no such letter had been received. The appeal was therefore treated as time-barred, and the rejection of the appeal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Collector was filed within limitation on the basis of a letter said to have been sent under certificate of posting, and whether the appellant had proved due presentation of the appeal.

Analysis: A mere assertion that a letter was sent under certificate of posting was held insufficient to establish filing of an appeal within the prescribed time under Section 35 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. In the absence of evidence that the letter was actually received, the appellant was required to prove the fact of presentation. The presumption under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 supported the correctness of the Collector's statement that no such letter had been received, and a postal certificate by itself did not discharge the burden of proof. The appeal was, therefore, beyond the period of limitation.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be time-barred and the rejection of the appeal was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal is not treated as duly filed within limitation merely because a party produces a certificate of posting; actual receipt or cogent proof of presentation is required, and official acts carry a presumption of correctness until disproved.

---