<?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>2007 (12) TMI 560 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457555</link>
    <description>A special statutory appeal period under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was treated as mandatory: the appeal had to be filed within 45 days of service, with only a further 45-day discretionary condonation window, creating an outer limit of 90 days. The appellate forum had no jurisdiction to entertain a filing beyond that ceiling, and the Limitation Act could not be used to extend it. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act could not enlarge the statutory limit, and section 14 was unavailable because the appellant had not shown due diligence and good faith in another proceeding. The delayed appeal was therefore not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2024 17:23:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (12) TMI 560 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457555</link>
      <description>A special statutory appeal period under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was treated as mandatory: the appeal had to be filed within 45 days of service, with only a further 45-day discretionary condonation window, creating an outer limit of 90 days. The appellate forum had no jurisdiction to entertain a filing beyond that ceiling, and the Limitation Act could not be used to extend it. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act could not enlarge the statutory limit, and section 14 was unavailable because the appellant had not shown due diligence and good faith in another proceeding. The delayed appeal was therefore not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>