TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 1102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... failure to submit evidentiary proof of utilization of any import of goods for which foreign exchange acquired in contravention of section 8(3) and 8(4) of FER Act, 1973 r/w para 7A 20 (Chapter 7 of Export Control Manual) 3. It is stated that there is inordinate delay of more than 200 days in filing this appeal. On behalf of the appellant it is submitted that the appellant had never received SCN stated to have been issued. Consequently no reply could be filed in response thereto. However, in the application for condonation of delay it is stated that the appellant came to know for the first time about the impugned order when the copy was received on or around 02.06.2004. On perusal of the adjudication order so received the appellant came ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Bank i.e. authorized dealer furnished wrong information to the RBI that the appellant instead of its sister concern M/s FISCO International Pvt. Ltd remitted foreign exchange culminating to the passing of impugned order. On being approached however the said authorized dealer ensured to pass correct information to the authorities concerned stating that the appellant had not remitted any amount thus it is submitted that no offence u/s 8(3) and 8(4) was made out against the appellant and the entire adjudication proceedings are vitiated and liable to be set aside and quashed. 5. Per contra Shri A.C. Singh, DLA contended that there is inordinate delay of more than 2G0 days and in view of the provisions of section 52(2) of FER Act, 1973 the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at FER Act, 1973 is repealed by FEM Act, 1999. There is no controversy that FER Act, 1973 is a self contained code where substantive and procedural provisions are intertwined. Similarly FEMA 1999 contained substantive and procedural provisions providing therein for adjudication proceedings can be held after a complaint is filed u/s 16 thereof before adjudicating authority. However, in FER Act, 1973 the procedure of filing of complaint before adjudicating officer is totally absent but the adjudicating officer can take notice of contravention by issuance of SCN whereafter the adjudication proceedings is to be conducted as per provisions of Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules 1974 if the adjudicating officer is dissatisfied with the repl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9. The question here is filing of an appeal against an order passed under FER Act, 1973. In view of section 49(4) of FEM Act, 1999 the remedy available under FER Act alone can be availed of and perused by appellants as appeal is the continuation of original proceedings. Therefore, this appeal has to be decided under law proper which, in the instant case, was FER Act 1973. Thus argument that this appeal is filed u/s 19(2) FEM Act, 1999 is fallacious and does not contain any merit. 10. It is well settled that whenever law is altered during the pendency of any action or remedy the rights of the parties are decided according to the law as it existed when the application began unless new statute shows clear intention to vary such rights. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emedy which may have been available before the repeal for enforcement of such rights and liabilities. 12. It is well settled in law that the legal proceedings validity instituted arc not effected by amended law though insofar as forum is concerned, the substituted forum shall automatically apply. In Purshotam Singh v. Narain Singh AIR 19555 Rajasthan 203 at 206 it was observed by Chief Justice Wanchoo (as his Lordship then was) that- "Section 6(e) has nothing to do with the forum where the investigation, legal proceeding or remedy has to be pursued. If the repealing Act provides a new forum where a legal proceeding coming on from before the repealing Act came into force can be pursued thereafter, the forum must be as provided in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bed period within which arbitral award can be challenged the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows : "It is only by virtue of section 29 of the Limitation Act its operation is excluded to that extent of the area which covered under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Our attention was also invited to the various decisions of this Court interpreting sub-section 2 of section 29 limitation Act with reference to other Acts like the Representation of Peoples Act or the provisions of Criminal procedure Code where separate period of limitation has been prescribed. We need to overburden the judgment with reference to those cases because it is very clear to us by virtue of sub-section (2) section 29 Limitation Act that the provi....