9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Competent Authority under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. 2. Condoning delay in filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. 3. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to entertain an appeal against the order of the Competent Authority under section 7 of the Act. 4. Application of section 14 of the Limitation Act. 5. Invocation of section 5 of the Limitation Act. 6. Misleading information regarding the forum of appeal in the impugned order. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appellant, the wife of a detained individual under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, appealed against a notice issued by the Competent Authority under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, regarding a specific property. The Competent Authority found that the property was acquired with unexplained funds, giving the appellant the option to retain it by paying a specified amount. The appellant filed an appeal against this order. 2. The appellant's appeal was delayed beyond the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of service of the order. She filed a Miscellaneous Petition seeking condonation of the delay, citing reasons such as the appeal being initially sent to the wrong authority and her illiteracy. The issue was whether the delay could be condoned. 3. The key issue was whether the Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the Competent Authority's order under section 7 of the Act by condoning a delay exceeding sixty days. The appellant argued for the exclusion of time spent with the Competent Authority and invoked section 14 of the Limitation Act, but the court found this argument lacking merit. 4. The court clarified that section 14 of the Limitation Act, which excludes time spent in proceedings before a court without jurisdiction, does not apply to appeals against orders of the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority cannot be considered an appellate forum, and thus, the appellant could not benefit from this provision to argue that the appeal was filed within time. 5. The appellant also sought the benefit of section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the extension of the prescribed period if sufficient cause is shown. However, due to the limitation prescribed in section 12(4) of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to extend the period of limitation could not exceed sixty days from the date of service of the order. 6. Lastly, the appellant contended that the impugned order did not specify the forum for appeal, leading to her confusion and the delay in filing the appeal. However, the court held that there was no statutory obligation on the Competent Authority to indicate the forum of appeal, and the appeal should have been filed before the Tribunal as per the Act. In conclusion, the court held that the Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond sixty days from the date of service of the order. As a result, the Miscellaneous Petition seeking condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal was also dismissed as time-barred.
|
