TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 325
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Judge in W.P. [C] 1426 & 1439/1999. 3) The issue involved in these appeals is short and it relates to the question as to whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appellants' appeals as being barred by time and was justified in holding that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeals and secondly, whether the High Court was justified in upholding the order of the Tribunal. 4) Few relevant facts need to be mentioned to appreciate the short controversy. 5) An order was passed by the Competent Authority under Section 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "SAFEMA") against the appellants on 14.07.1998 and 14.10.1998 in rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 60 days. Since in this case, the appeals were filed on 81st day, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period of 60th day. The Tribunal, therefore, did not find any apparent error to review their order in the absence of any power to review and further any error to rectify such order. 11) The appellants, felt aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, filed writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution before the High Court. By order dated 14.07.2011/27.07.2011, Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petitions. 12) Against the order of the Single Judge, the appellants filed intra court appeals. By impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the order p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8 of the appeal. The clear admission was to the following effect: 'that the said order dated 14.07.1998 was received by the appellant sometime around 29-30th of July, 1998'. A condonation of delay application was also filed alongwith the said appeal before the said Tribunal. Paragraph 4 of the said condonation of delay application reads as under: "The impugned order dated 14.07.1998, was served on the appellant on 29/30th July, 1998, and the appellant should have preferred an appeal within 45 days therefrom. The appellants are illiterate and paradanashini widows and the appellant No. 1 has the duty of bringing up for minor children and an ailing aged mother who is appellant No. 2 in addition to other social obligations." 17) In ....