2010 (10) TMI 1157 - AT - FEMA

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal.
2. Ex parte adjudication order.
3. Lack of communication from the Tribunal.
4. Grounds for review of the order dated 1-6-2010.

Condonation of Delay in Filing an Appeal:
The review petition was filed against the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal due to a delay of over four years in filing the appeal. The petitioner argued that the Adjudication Order was passed ex parte, received in 2001, and not served properly. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the petitioner's submissions regarding the date of receipt of the Adjudication Order and reasons for the delay. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal was rightly dismissed due to the delay and lack of sufficient justification provided by the appellant.

Ex Parte Adjudication Order:
The petitioner claimed that the Adjudication Order was received ex parte in 2001, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. However, the Tribunal found that the petitioner failed to disclose crucial information regarding the receipt of the order and the reasons for the delay. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the petitioner's statements and concluded that the order was passed after considering all aspects, including the delay issue.

Lack of Communication from the Tribunal:
The petitioner argued that there was a lack of communication from the Tribunal after a specific date, leading to confusion about the appeal status. The Tribunal refuted this claim, stating that the petitioner had a history of absenteeism in adjudication proceedings. The Tribunal found that the petitioner's delay in enquiring about the appeal and failure to provide reasons for the four-month gap contributed to the dismissal of the appeal.

Grounds for Review of the Order:
The Tribunal highlighted that the order dated 1-6-2010 was not reviewable unless there was an apparent error on the face of the order. The Tribunal explained the limited grounds for review, such as errors in the record or the availability of new substantial evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that a review cannot be based on dissatisfaction with the reasons provided in the original order. The review petition was deemed not maintainable and was rejected based on the facts, evidence, and circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the delay in filing, lack of proper justification, and discrepancies in the petitioner's submissions. The review petition was rejected as it did not meet the criteria for review, emphasizing the importance of providing accurate information and timely action in legal proceedings.