Presumption of service by registered post upheld where bare denial failed to rebut notice and restoration was refused.

Dispatch of the hearing notice and dismissal order by registered post, supported by the outward register, raised the statutory presumption of service under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. That presumption was rebuttable, but a bare denial was insufficient; the correspondence relied on did not displace service of the hearing notice fixed for 13-2-1991. As the applicant failed to rebut service, the request to set aside the dismissal and restore the appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the presumption of service arising from dispatch of the hearing notice and the dismissal order by registered post was rebutted so as to justify setting aside the dismissal and restoring the appeal.

Analysis: Rule 18 of the C.E.G.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1982 required notice of hearing, and Rule 35 governed communication of orders. The Tribunal held that dispatch of the notice and order by registered post, supported by the outward register, attracted the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the communication was received. That presumption was rebuttable, but a bare denial was not enough. The correspondence relied upon by the applicant showed only that delivery problems arose much later and did not displace the presumption that the hearing notice fixed for 13-2-1991 had been served.

Conclusion: The presumption of service was not rebutted and the application for restoration was rejected.

---