9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against adjudication order under FER Act, 1973; Delay in filing appeal; Applicability of FEMA 1999; Provisions of section 52(2) of FER Act, 1973; Repeal of FER Act, 1973 by FEMA 1999; Continuation of proceedings under FER Act, 1973; Interpretation of section 49(4) of FEMA 1999; Effect of repeal on legal proceedings; Limitation period for filing appeal. Analysis: The appellant filed an appeal against an adjudication order under the Foreign Exchange Regulation (FER) Act, 1973, challenging a penalty imposed for failure to submit proof of foreign exchange utilization. The appellant claimed delay due to non-receipt of show cause notice. The appeal was filed under FEMA 1999, seeking condonation of delay beyond the 45-day limit. However, the respondent argued the appeal was time-barred under section 52(2) of FER Act, which allows appeals within 90 days. The tribunal noted the outer limit for filing appeals under FER Act is 90 days, emphasizing adherence to statutory timelines. The tribunal addressed the repeal of FER Act, 1973 by FEMA 1999, emphasizing the continuation of proceedings under the former Act. It highlighted that all offenses under the repealed Act are governed by the old Act, as per section 49(4) of FEMA 1999. The tribunal cited legal principles and precedents to support the application of the old Act for pending appeals. It clarified that the appeal must be decided under the law in force when the proceedings began, unless the new statute explicitly alters rights. Regarding the limitation period, the tribunal stressed the importance of adhering to statutory timelines. It cited a Supreme Court decision to emphasize the exclusion of the Limitation Act in specific Acts like the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The tribunal rejected the appellant's argument for condonation of delay beyond the 90-day limit, stating that statutory provisions must be strictly followed. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, directing the appellant to pay the balance penalty amount within a week, failing which enforcement action would be taken. In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the statutory timelines for filing appeals, emphasized the continuation of proceedings under the repealed Act, and rejected the appellant's request for condonation of delay beyond the prescribed limit. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and timelines in legal proceedings.
|
