Statutory limitation bars delayed appeal where the appellate authority lacks power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period.

An appeal filed beyond the statutory 90-day period under the appellate provision of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could not be entertained where the delay was admitted and the appellate forum had no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the prescribed limit. The authority held that once the appeal was instituted after expiry of the permissible period, the defect was fatal at the threshold. Condonation was therefore refused for want of jurisdiction, and the proceeding failed as time barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal could be entertained and the delay in filing could be condoned when it was filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under the appellate provision.

Analysis: The appeal was filed far beyond the prescribed 90-day period under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 52 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The delay was admitted in the condonation application, and the Board recorded that it had no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutory limit. As the appeal was instituted after the expiry of the permissible period, it could not be entertained.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable and the request for condonation of delay was rejected for want of jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding failed at the threshold on limitation and was dismissed as time barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute bars entertainment of an appeal filed beyond a prescribed period and excludes power to condone delay beyond that limit, the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal once it is time barred.

---