1997 (4) TMI 464 - AT - FEMA

Tribunal Upholds Strict 60-Day Limit for SAFEMA Appeals, Dismisses Delayed Filing

Smt. Pallavi Haribhai Tandel Versus Competent Authority

The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay in presenting an appeal under the SAFEMA, emphasizing the strict adherence to the Act's ... - Issues:- Condonation of delay in presenting the appeal under the SAFEMA- Applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to appeals filed under the SAFEMAAnalysis:The judgment pertains to an application for condonation of delay in presenting an appeal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA). The appellant, one of the legal heirs of a deceased individual whose properties were forfeited, filed an appeal against the order of the competent authority after a significant delay. The central issue revolved around whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, despite the specific provisions of the SAFEMA governing the timeline for filing appeals.The appellant's counsel argued that section 5 of the Limitation Act should apply to the appeals filed under the SAFEMA, citing various Supreme Court decisions in support. However, the respondent contended that the SAFEMA, being a special enactment, had a specific provision under section 12(4) that prescribed a limitation of 60 days for filing appeals, with a provision for condonation only if sufficient cause was shown within that period. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the SAFEMA and the Limitation Act to determine the scope of applicability of section 5 in the present case.The Tribunal highlighted that section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for condonation of delay beyond the prescribed period, is typically applicable to courts and not tribunals. It emphasized that the proviso to sub-section (4) of section 12 of the SAFEMA expressly set a 60-day limit for filing appeals, with no provision for invoking section 5. The Tribunal reasoned that the special nature of the SAFEMA, coupled with the overriding effect of the Act over other laws, indicated that the limitation prescribed by the SAFEMA must be strictly adhered to, without recourse to section 5 of the Limitation Act.In rejecting the application for condonation of delay, the Tribunal held that it lacked the authority to extend the timeline beyond what was explicitly provided in the SAFEMA. The Tribunal clarified that even if the principles of section 5 were applied, the specific limitation period under the SAFEMA prevailed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the rejection of the appeal due to being filed well beyond the 60-day limit specified by the SAFEMA.In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the specific timelines and provisions outlined in special enactments like the SAFEMA, which may preclude the application of general provisions such as section 5 of the Limitation Act in certain circumstances.