Saving clause preserves appellate remedy under repealed foreign exchange law, but statutory outer time limit bars late appeals.

A saving clause under a later enactment preserves liabilities, proceedings and remedies arising under the repealed foreign exchange law, so the appeal remained governed by the repealed statute and its attached appellate remedy unless contrary legislative intent was shown. The appellate tribunal also lacked power to condone delay beyond the statute's express outer limit of 90 days, because the limitation provision was mandatory and could not be extended by reference to prior directions or equitable considerations. The commentary therefore states that the repealed law continued to govern the appeal, while the time-bar under the statutory ceiling remained uncompromising.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal against an adjudication order passed under the repealed foreign exchange law had to be governed by that repealed law or by the later enactment; (ii) Whether the delay of more than 90 days in filing the appeal could be condoned.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal against an adjudication order passed under the repealed foreign exchange law had to be governed by that repealed law or by the later enactment.

Analysis: The saving provision in the later enactment preserved liabilities, proceedings, and remedies arising under the repealed law. The right of appeal was treated as part of the original statutory remedy, and the forum and procedure applicable to the original adjudication were held to continue unless a contrary legislative intention was shown. The later enactment did not evince an intention to displace the appellate remedy attached to the repealed law.

Conclusion: The appeal was required to be governed by the repealed law, not by the later enactment.

Issue (ii): Whether the delay of more than 90 days in filing the appeal could be condoned.

Analysis: The appellate provision fixed 45 days for filing an appeal and permitted condonation only up to the outer limit of 90 days on showing sufficient cause. The tribunal held that the statutory ceiling was mandatory and that, being a creature of statute, it had no power to entertain an appeal filed beyond that outer limit. The earlier direction regarding pre-deposit did not operate as an estoppel against the statute.

Conclusion: The delay beyond 90 days could not be condoned and the appeal was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the adjudication order failed because the appeal was governed by the repealed foreign exchange law and was filed beyond the maximum condonable period; the penalty order therefore remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of contrary legislative intent, a saving clause preserves the appellate remedy and procedural consequences attached to actions initiated under a repealed statute, but a statutory limitation period with an express outer limit cannot be extended by the tribunal beyond that limit.

---