Repealed foreign exchange law governed appeal limitation; delay beyond ninety days could not be condoned under the saved proceedings regime.

An appeal against an adjudication order under the repealed foreign exchange law remained governed by that repealed statute, because the later enactment preserved liabilities, offences and proceedings arising under the old law. The tribunal held that section 49 of the later Act did not enlarge the appellate remedy or remove the statutory outer limit for delay. Under section 52(2) of the repealed Act, the appeal had to be filed within forty-five days, with condonation available only up to ninety days on sufficient cause. Delay beyond ninety days could not be condoned, so the appeal was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal against an adjudication order under the repealed foreign exchange law could be entertained beyond the statutory outer limit of ninety days on the basis of the subsequent enactment.

Analysis: The appeal arose from an adjudication order passed under the repealed foreign exchange law, while the appellant sought to invoke the later enactment to contend that delay could be condoned without an outer limit. The Tribunal held that the repealed Act remained the governing law for offences and proceedings saved by the repealing statute. Section 49 of the later Act preserved liabilities and proceedings under the repealed Act, and the remedy therefore continued to be controlled by the old law. Under section 52(2) of the repealed Act, an appeal had to be filed within forty-five days, with condonation permitted only up to ninety days on sufficient cause.

Conclusion: The delay beyond ninety days could not be condoned, and the appeal was not maintainable.

---