Repealed foreign exchange regime and strict limitation ceiling govern appeals under the special statute

Appeals from adjudication orders initiated within the saving period after repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 continued to be governed by the repealed Act, not the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, because the repeal and saving clause preserved proceedings already set in motion. The Appellate Tribunal also lacked power to condone delay beyond the statutory maximum of 90 days, since the special appellate provision fixed an outer limit that excluded any further enlargement. On both issues, the challenge failed and the appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether appeals against an adjudication order passed after the repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were to be governed by the repealed Act or by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999; (ii) whether the Appellate Tribunal had power to condone delay beyond 90 days in filing such appeals.

Issue (i): whether appeals against an adjudication order passed after the repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were to be governed by the repealed Act or by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

Analysis: The repeal and saving provisions preserved proceedings initiated within the statutory sunset period. Since notice had been issued within the period permitted under the saving clause and the adjudication proceeded under the repealed regime, the challenge to the adjudication order had to be treated as a continuation of proceedings under the repealed Act. The appellate remedy therefore remained governed by the repealed enactment and not by the later statute.

Conclusion: The appeal was correctly treated as governed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and this issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): whether the Appellate Tribunal had power to condone delay beyond 90 days in filing such appeals.

Analysis: The appellate provision prescribed 45 days as the normal period, with a limited further extension up to 90 days on sufficient cause being shown. The statutory language fixed an outer limit and excluded any enlargement beyond that maximum. In a special statute where the legislature expressly provides the maximum condonable period, the general power to condone delay cannot be invoked to cross that ceiling.

Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal had no power to condone delay beyond 90 days, and this issue was decided against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the proceedings were governed by the repealed foreign exchange regime and the delay exceeded the statutory outer limit for condonation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute fixes a maximum condonable period for appeal, the tribunal cannot extend limitation beyond that outer limit; and proceedings initiated within the saving period under a repealed enactment continue to be governed by that repealed regime.

---