Limitation under repealed foreign exchange law follows the filing-date regime; appeal filed within the outer period cannot be time-barred.

In an appeal arising from proceedings under a repealed foreign exchange law, the limitation and condonation regime is determined by the law governing the appeal at the time of filing, subject to repeal-and-savings provisions. The appellate forum below erred in applying the stricter limitation framework of the repealed enactment merely because the underlying proceedings had begun earlier. The appeal was filed within the outer statutory period of ninety days, so it could not be treated as time-barred and was required to be entertained. The orders below were set aside and the matter remitted for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal arising from proceedings initiated under the repealed foreign exchange law was to be governed, for limitation and condonation of delay, by the repealed enactment or by the successor enactment; (ii) Whether the appeal before the appellate forum was within limitation and, if so, whether delay could be condoned.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal arising from proceedings initiated under the repealed foreign exchange law was to be governed, for limitation and condonation of delay, by the repealed enactment or by the successor enactment.

Analysis: The repeal-and-savings provision preserved pending and continuing proceedings under the repealed law, while the general saving principle protected accrued liabilities and rights unless expressly excluded. The governing principle applied was that the procedural law applicable to the appeal is the law in force when the appeal is filed, unless the statute clearly provides otherwise. On that basis, the forum below erred in treating the appeal as governed by the stricter limitation regime under the repealed law merely because the adjudication arose from earlier proceedings.

Conclusion: The appeal was not required to be tested under the repealed law in the manner adopted below, and the contrary view was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal before the appellate forum was within limitation and, if so, whether delay could be condoned.

Analysis: The appeal was filed after service of the adjudication order within the outer statutory period of ninety days. The statutory scheme under the repealed law permitted entertainment of an appeal beyond the initial period and up to ninety days on sufficient cause being shown. Since the filing was within that outer limit, the appeal could not have been rejected as time-barred.

Conclusion: The appeal was within limitation and was liable to be entertained.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the appellate forum and the High Court were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal filed after repeal, the applicable limitation and condonation regime is determined by the statutory scheme governing the appeal at the time of filing, subject to the repeal-and-savings provisions; an appeal filed within the prescribed outer period cannot be dismissed as time-barred.

---