Appeals Dismissed as Time-Barred: Failure to File Within 90-Day Limit Under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.

Both appeals against penalties for contravening the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, were dismissed as time-barred. The appellants failed to file within the 90-day limit, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to condone delays beyond this period. Arguments regarding improper service of the impugned orders were deemed unconvincing, leading to the dismissal.

---

---

Issues: Appeal against penalty imposed for contravention of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, condonation of delay, proper service of impugned order, jurisdiction of the Board to condone delay.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to appeals against penalties imposed for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellants, Sajjan Singh and Shambu Singh, were penalized for sale and purchase of foreign currency in violation of the Act. The penalties were imposed under sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Act.

2. The appeals were accompanied by applications for condonation of delay, stay of the impugned order, and waiver from pre-deposit of penalty amounts. The delay in filing the appeals was 138 days, exceeding the 90-day limit prescribed by the Act. The Board issued a notice to the appellants to explain why their appeals should not be dismissed as time-barred.

3. The appellant in Appeal No. 16 claimed that the impugned order was delivered at his residence, making the appeal not time-barred. However, due to limitations on the Board's power to condone delays beyond 90 days, the appellant was advised to seek recourse elsewhere.

4. Regarding Appeal No. 15, the appellant argued that the impugned order was not properly served as it was delivered at Shambu Singh's residence, not his own. The appellant filed the appeal within the prescribed period upon learning about the order. The respondent contended that the appellant resided with Shambu Singh and had received notices at the same address where the impugned order was sent.

5. The Board found the appellant's argument unconvincing, noting that he had previously stated residing with Shambu Singh at the address where the order was delivered. Despite attempts to provide a different address later, the Board's notice sent to the new address was returned undelivered. The appellant's evidence to prove different addresses was deemed unreliable, and his plea for condonation of delay was similar to the other appellant's case.

6. Ultimately, both appeals were dismissed as time-barred due to the Board's lack of jurisdiction to condone delays exceeding the statutory limit. The decision was based on the appellants' failure to demonstrate proper service of the impugned order and establish valid grounds for condonation of delay.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, addressing the legal arguments presented by the parties and the Board's reasoning for dismissing the appeals.

---