9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 636 - HC - FEMAMaintainability of appeal against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange - Period of limitation - Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal on the ground of provisions of Section 52 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - HELD THAT - Non-entertainment of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground of Section 52(2) of the Act of 1973 was erroneous in view of the ratio laid down in Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. 2011 (4) TMI 489 - SUPREME COURT However, we find from the materials produced on record that, the appellant was served with the order-in-original dated January 21, 2000 by registered post which was dispatched on March 13, 2000. The appellant is unable to show any reasonable cause as to why, the appellant did not file the appeal within the time prescribed under the Act of 1973. No explanation is put forward under the Act of 1999 for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. We find no merit in the present appeal.
Issues involved: Appeal against order dated October 12, 2010 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange.
Summary: The appellant challenged the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground of provisions of Section 52 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The appellant argued that the appeal should have been governed by the Act of 1999 as the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 had been repealed. The respondent contended that the appellant had received the order-in-original at the address where the raid took place, which was the residential address of the appellant. The appellant claimed to have shifted the residential address only before the Appellate Authority. The order-in-original was dispatched to the appellant by registered post. The Court referred to the case of Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. which clarified the appeal process under the FERA Act, 1973 and the FEMA Act, 1999. The Court held that the Appellate Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal based on Section 52(2) of the FERA Act, as the appeal should have been governed by Section 19(2) of the FEMA Act. The Court emphasized that under FEMA, the delay in filing an appeal can be condoned without any limit if sufficient cause is shown. However, the Court found that the appellant failed to provide a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal, both under the Act of 1973 and the Act of 1999. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, and the application along with the appeal were disposed of without costs.
|
