Limitation under SAFEMA appeals begins on service of the forfeiture order, and delay beyond 60 days cannot be condoned.

Section 12(4) of SAFEMA requires an appeal to be filed within 45 days of service of the forfeiture order, and the proviso permits entertainment of a delayed appeal only up to an outer limit of 60 days on sufficient cause. The Bombay High Court held that limitation starts on service of the order on the aggrieved person; service of the full papers and proceedings is not necessary to trigger time. It further held that the phrase "but not after 60 days" creates an express exclusion under section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, so the Appellate Tribunal has no power to condone delay beyond 60 days.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal under section 12(4) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 was time-barred and whether the Appellate Tribunal could condone delay beyond the period of 60 days from service of the forfeiture order.

Analysis: Section 12(4) prescribes an appeal within 45 days from service of the order and the proviso permits entertainment of an appeal after that period but not after 60 days if sufficient cause is shown. The Court held that the limitation period begins when the order is served on the aggrieved person and rejected the contention that service of the entire papers and proceedings was necessary before time could start running. The Court further held that the words "but not after 60 days" amount to an express exclusion within the meaning of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, leaving no power in the Appellate Tribunal to condone delay beyond that period.

Conclusion: The appeal was filed beyond the outer limit prescribed by section 12(4) of SAFEMA, the delay could not be condoned, and the rejection of the appeal as time-barred was upheld.

---