https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246175 Delay of 804 days in filing the appeal was not condoned because the explanation offered did not amount to sufficient cause. The Court treated the limitation scheme under the applicable foreign exchange framework as procedural, but still required the appellant to show due diligence and bona fide effort. Repeated inaction, failure to follow up, non-removal of objections within time, and the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the prolonged lapse meant the appellant did not meet the condonation standard, and the application was rejected. en-us Mon, 24 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:54:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246175 Delay of 804 days in filing the appeal was not condoned because the explanation offered did not amount to sufficient cause. The Court treated the limitation scheme under the applicable foreign exchange framework as procedural, but still required the appellant to show due diligence and bona fide effort. Repeated inaction, failure to follow up, non-removal of objections within time, and the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the prolonged lapse meant the appellant did not meet the condonation standard, and the application was rejected. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 24 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246175