https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117737 The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The impugned order had been sent by speed post to the appellant's office address, and the acknowledgment card supported service. The appellant's claim that the order was not received because the factory was closed was rejected for want of evidence, and the presumption of service under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was not rebutted. Reliance on delay in posting the application was also found irrelevant because no inordinate delay before the Bench was shown. The delay was not condoned, and the appeal and stay application were dismissed. en-us Mon, 06 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:47:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117737 The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The impugned order had been sent by speed post to the appellant's office address, and the acknowledgment card supported service. The appellant's claim that the order was not received because the factory was closed was rejected for want of evidence, and the presumption of service under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was not rebutted. Reliance on delay in posting the application was also found irrelevant because no inordinate delay before the Bench was shown. The delay was not condoned, and the appeal and stay application were dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117737