Limitation under FEMA appeals: inordinate delay requires sufficient cause, and procedural rules apply as on filing date.

Delay of 775 days in filing an appeal under FEMA was held not condonable because the explanation showed inaction and negligence, with no satisfactory day-to-day account of the delay. The High Court treated the limitation framework for appeals as procedural and applicable as on the date of filing, but held that this did not allow extension beyond the statutory outer limit without sufficient cause. On that basis, the appeal was treated as not maintainable within the prescribed limitation scheme.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 775 days in filing the appeal deserved condonation and whether the appeal could be entertained under the limitation framework applicable to appeals from the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: The appeal was filed long after the statutory period. The limitation provisions governing appeals to the High Court and the tribunal under FEMA were treated as procedural and applicable at the time of filing. The statutory scheme did not permit a liberal extension beyond the prescribed outer limit, and the explanation offered for the delay did not establish sufficient cause. The reasons disclosed in the application showed inaction and negligence, with no satisfactory day-to-day explanation for the delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not liable to be condoned and the appeal was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Limitation for filing an appeal is procedural and is governed by the law in force on the date of filing, but an inordinate delay can be condoned only on a clear showing of sufficient cause within the statutory framework.

---