https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214372 Delays in filing and re-filing appeals were not condoned because the Department's applications were vague and lacked particulars of the dates and steps taken to explain the delay. The Court applied the limitation periods under section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and held that no sufficient cause was shown for either the 507-day filing delay or the 151-day re-filing delay. Although limitation law may be construed liberally in appropriate cases, that indulgence was unavailable where the conduct reflected gross negligence and lack of bona fides. The appeals were therefore barred by time. en-us Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214372 Delays in filing and re-filing appeals were not condoned because the Department's applications were vague and lacked particulars of the dates and steps taken to explain the delay. The Court applied the limitation periods under section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and held that no sufficient cause was shown for either the 507-day filing delay or the 151-day re-filing delay. Although limitation law may be construed liberally in appropriate cases, that indulgence was unavailable where the conduct reflected gross negligence and lack of bona fides. The appeals were therefore barred by time. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214372