1999 (2) TMI 622 - AT - FEMA

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal
2. Whether the appeal is presented within time and whether it is barred by limitation

Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the appeal:
The appeal was filed by Aminabi Kaskar challenging the forfeiture of her properties under the SAFEMA. The Deputy Director contended that a previous appeal filed by another individual along with Aminabi Kaskar had been dismissed, making the current appeal not maintainable. However, the counsel for Aminabi Kaskar argued that she had not signed the previous appeal documents, making the current appeal maintainable. The Tribunal examined the records and found no signature of Aminabi Kaskar in the previous appeal, concluding that she was not connected to it. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the current appeal was maintainable.

2. Barred by limitation:
The Deputy Director argued that the current appeal was barred by limitation as the order under appeal was served on the appellant's counsel on July 22, 1998, and the appeal was presented on November 12, 1998, exceeding the prescribed time limit. The appellant's counsel disputed the service of the order on the counsel, claiming it did not comply with section 22 of the SAFEMA. However, the Tribunal noted that similar arguments had been raised in a previous case and were rejected. The Tribunal held that the service of the order on the counsel was valid, and the appeal was indeed filed beyond the statutory time limit of 45 days, as extended by 15 days. Referring to a previous judgment, the Tribunal stated that it had no jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the specified period. As the appeal was filed on the 112th day after the service of the order, it was deemed barred by limitation and dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the current appeal maintainable but dismissed it as it was filed beyond the statutory time limit, making it barred by limitation. The failure to submit a certified copy of the order under appeal was also noted, although it was not considered a significant factor in the dismissal of the appeal.