Statutory delay condonation limit bars late appeal where the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction beyond the prescribed outer period.

The appellate authority had no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutory outer limit of 90 days under the first proviso to section 52(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Because the appeal was filed nearly two years after receipt of the adjudication order, it was beyond the permissible period and therefore not maintainable. The memorandum of appeal itself disclosed the delay, so no examination on merits was necessary. The operative principle is that where the statute fixes a maximum condonable period, the appellate forum cannot extend time beyond that limit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal, filed long after receipt of the impugned order, could be entertained by condoning the delay under the first proviso to section 52(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: The appeal was filed nearly two years after receipt of the adjudication order. The first proviso to section 52(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 empowers the Board to condone delay only up to a maximum period of 90 days from receipt of the order. Once the appeal is filed beyond that period, the Board has no jurisdiction to condone the delay. Since the memorandum of appeal itself showed that the filing was far beyond the permissible period, no hearing on merits was considered necessary.

Conclusion: The delay could not be condoned and the appeal was not maintainable as time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The statutory limitation under section 52(2) barred consideration of the appeal, resulting in dismissal without examination of the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers power to condone delay only up to a prescribed outer limit, the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to extend time beyond that limit.

---