TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned Adjudication Order was passed on 10-12-2004. The appeal has been filed without any application for Condonation of Delay. The dispute relates to whether there is any delay in filing of the appeal against the impugned Adjudication Order. 3. Both under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 (FERA) & under the Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999 (FEMA) the stipulated limitation for filing an appeal against an Adjudication Order is 45 days from the date on which the order is served on or received by the person who intends to file the appeal. The appellant has contended that he filed the appeal within 45 days that is within the stipulated limitation period. 4. The Tribunal during the hearings on 29-7-2019 and on 5-11-2019 asked the resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... received for the first time as an enclosure to letter dated 14-1-2019. The appellant further contended that the signature on the Acknowledgment is that of the father of the appellant, who expired on 5-4-2021. The appellant contended that he was not having amicable relations with his father, Late Shri R L Nathani and hence he did not receive the impugned order before 14-1-2019. Since, the appeal was filed on 9-2-2019 it is within the stipulated limitation period. A copy of the death certificate of Late Shri R L Nathani and a copy of cheque dated 15-8-2019 signed by Shri R L Nathani have been enclosed with the reply. 6. During the hearing on 31-5-2023 the learned counsel for the appellant strongly pleaded for taking-up of the appeal on meri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal that the said Demand Notice was received by him and for which he on 4-12-2018 conveyed to the respondent that the impugned order was never received by him, hence requested for a copy of the impugned order. I therefore, find that the Appellant has not disputed having received the Show Cause Notice and the Demand Notice at the same address at which the respondent claimed to have served the impugned Adjudication Order. The respondent has produced a copy of the postal Acknowledgment bearing signature with date, as proof of service of the impugned Adjudication Order on the appellant on 13-12-2004. The authenticity of the said Acknowledgment is not challenged by the appellant, however, he claims that the signature on the Acknowledgment is t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation which were in progress and should have been diligent enough about its culmination. The judgment dated 22-8-2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Baswaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [Civil Appeal No. 6974 of 2013, dated 22-8-2013] states;- "The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain to the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there ca....