2014 (10) TMI 885 - AT - FEMA

Condonation of delay - Held that - From the perusal of the Impugned Orders that proceedings were held ex parte. The show cause notices were served by affixation. The cause for delay in instituting the appeal after a gap of more than seven years appears to us to be sufficient and convincing. There is no proof on record that the show cause notices or the Adjudication Orders were duly served upon the applicants/appellants. The delay condonation applications are supported by uncontroverted affidavits. In this view of the matter, the applications deserve to be allowed. Consequently, the applications in all the appeals noted herein above are allowed and the delay in filing the instant appeals is condoned. Registry is directed to register the appeals and list the appeals on 17-12-2014.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals challenging Adjudication orders under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

Analysis:
The appellants filed appeals challenging Adjudication orders under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The appeals were filed on 22-7-2011 with separate applications for condonation of delay. The appellants claimed they had no knowledge of the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority, and the orders were ex parte without serving show cause notices. They received copies of show cause notices and orders later, leading to the delay in filing the appeals. The delay was stated to be bona fide, and the appeals were filed immediately upon learning about the proceedings. The appellants contended that the orders were passed in violation of the Act and principles of natural justice. They argued that no liability could be fixed as the proceedings were ex parte based on fake service reports. The delay was attributed to lack of knowledge, and the appellants sought condonation based on sufficient cause shown in the affidavits.

The appellants were represented by their Advocate, while the Respondent was represented by a Legal Consultant. The appellants' Counsel argued that there was no deliberate delay in filing the appeals, and the delay, if any, was bona fide. They emphasized that the entire proceedings were ex parte and lacked proper verification. The Legal Consultant opposed the applications, citing the significant delay of over seven years in filing the appeals. However, no formal objection was filed. The Tribunal noted that the proceedings were indeed ex parte, with show cause notices served by affixation. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found the cause for delay in filing the appeals after seven years to be sufficient and convincing. There was no proof that the notices or orders were duly served on the appellants. The delay condonation applications were supported by uncontroverted affidavits, leading the Tribunal to allow the applications and condone the delay. The appeals were directed to be registered, and a date was set for listing, with no costs imposed on either party.