<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (7) TMI 1102 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457477</link>
    <description>A saving clause under a later enactment preserves liabilities, proceedings and remedies arising under the repealed foreign exchange law, so the appeal remained governed by the repealed statute and its attached appellate remedy unless contrary legislative intent was shown. The appellate tribunal also lacked power to condone delay beyond the statute&#039;s express outer limit of 90 days, because the limitation provision was mandatory and could not be extended by reference to prior directions or equitable considerations. The commentary therefore states that the repealed law continued to govern the appeal, while the time-bar under the statutory ceiling remained uncompromising.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2024 14:16:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769476" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 1102 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457477</link>
      <description>A saving clause under a later enactment preserves liabilities, proceedings and remedies arising under the repealed foreign exchange law, so the appeal remained governed by the repealed statute and its attached appellate remedy unless contrary legislative intent was shown. The appellate tribunal also lacked power to condone delay beyond the statute&#039;s express outer limit of 90 days, because the limitation provision was mandatory and could not be extended by reference to prior directions or equitable considerations. The commentary therefore states that the repealed law continued to govern the appeal, while the time-bar under the statutory ceiling remained uncompromising.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457477</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>