https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457492 An appeal under FERA section 52(2) had to be filed within 45 days of service of the order, and delay could be considered only up to the statute's outer condonation limit; the appellate forum could not extend time beyond that boundary. The appeals filed after expiry of the permissible period were therefore not maintainable and were dismissed for delay. The same provision also made pre-deposit mandatory, subject only to dispensation for undue hardship. As the conditional deposit order was not complied with and no bona fide explanation was shown, the Tribunal held that the statutory consequence of non-compliance could not be ignored, and the appeals were also liable to dismissal on that ground. en-us Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Sep 2024 17:12:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457492 An appeal under FERA section 52(2) had to be filed within 45 days of service of the order, and delay could be considered only up to the statute's outer condonation limit; the appellate forum could not extend time beyond that boundary. The appeals filed after expiry of the permissible period were therefore not maintainable and were dismissed for delay. The same provision also made pre-deposit mandatory, subject only to dispensation for undue hardship. As the conditional deposit order was not complied with and no bona fide explanation was shown, the Tribunal held that the statutory consequence of non-compliance could not be ignored, and the appeals were also liable to dismissal on that ground. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457492