9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in dismissing the appeal on the ground of provisions of Section 52 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. He submits that, the appeal was directed against an order of adjudication dated January 21, 2000. The appellant received the copy of the order-in-original sometime in 2010 when the order-in-original was served upon the learned advocate for the appellant. Immediately thereafter, the appellant preferred the appeal. The appeal was erroneously dismissed on the ground of Section 52(2) of the FERA Act, 1973. He submits that, the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was governed by the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 in view of Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 being repealed by the Act of 1999. In support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, any appeal against the order of the adjudicating officer made under FERA, after FEMA came into force, had to be filed before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under FEMA and not to the Appellate Board under FERA. Section 52 of FERA stipulates the limitation for an appeal against the orders of the adjudicating officer to the Appellate Board. It provides the period of limitation as 45 days but the Board may entertain an appeal after the expiry 45 days but not beyond 90 days. Under FEMA, an appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act and Section 1992) provides that every appeal shall be filed within 45 days from the date on which a copy of the order of the adjudicating authority is received. The appellate is however em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate Tribunal limitation being a matter of procedure only that law that is applicable at the time of filing the appeal, would apply. Therefore, Section 19(2) of FEMA and not Section 52(2) of FERA will apply. As noticed above, under Section 19(2), there is no ceiling in regard to the period of delay that could be condoned by the appellate tribunal. If sufficient cause is made out, delay beyond 45 days can also be condoned. The tribunal and the High Court misdirected themselves in assuming that the period of limitation was governed by Section 52(2) of FERA. 27. We have already indicated that clause (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 49 refers to appeal preferred and pending before the Appellate Board under FERA at the time of repeal. The s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, hold that the Appellate Tribunal can entertain the appeal after the prescribed period of 45 days if it is satisfied, that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the said period. We are therefore inclined to set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law on the basis of the findings recorded by us. We order accordingly." The appeal was sought to be filed by the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal, from the order dated January 21, 2000, in 2010. Such appeal was not entertained by the Appellate Tribunal in view of provisions of Section 52(2) of the FERA Act, 1973. Non-entertainment of the appeal by the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
