TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have considered the explanation given by the Appellants for the delay in filing the appeals - Having considered the explanation offered by the Appellants for the delay in filing their respective appeals, the Court is of the view that the delay was for bonafide reasons and ought to be condoned. The Court notes that the question of the consequences of the failure to make the pre-deposit has been considered by the AT in the context of FERA and not FEMA. Secondly, the merits of the appeals have been considered only in relation to one of the transactions of the paper division of SACL involving US$20,000 and not the other transaction at serial No.8 of the SCN, concerning the fertiliser division of SACL valued at US $ 174,000. Impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons relating to the fertilizer division of SACL mentioned in SCN, alternate documents had been submitted in respect of two of them, but in respect of the 3rd, of the value of US$174000, they had not been able to trace the original bill of entry pertaining to imports. Some more time was sought for that purpose. 4. It appears that subsequently by letter dated on 17th September 2002, the ED was informed by the fertilizer division of SACL that they had been able to trace the copies of the invoice duly attested by the Customs Authority, Kandla Port pertaining to the remittance of US$174,000. Enclosed with the letter was also an affidavit regarding import of materials. It was stated that with the submission of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spectively. 7. The appeals were treated as having been filed under Section 52 (2) FERA, although by that time FERA stood repealed by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA). By order dated 31st January 2005, the AT directed SACL to deposit 10% of the penalty amount as pre-deposit. Admittedly, the said amount was not deposited. 8. By the impugned order dated 28th July 2008, the AT dismissed the appeals on three grounds. First, it was held that the appeals were time barred in terms of Section 52 (2) FERA as it was filed well beyond the outer limit of 90 days. Secondly, the failure to make the pre-deposit would render the appeals liable for dismissal. Thirdly, as far as the imports were conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the proviso to Section 19 (2) FEMA, a delay beyond 90 days can be condoned provided the Appellant shows sufficient cause, the AT cannot dismiss an appeal only because it was filed beyond the outer limit of 90 days under Section 52 (2) FERA. 11. Therefore, in the present case, the AT was in error in holding that the appeals before it were barred by limitation since they were filed beyond the outer limit of 90 days. The AT ought to have considered the explanation given by the Appellants for the delay in filing the appeals. Having considered the explanation offered by the Appellants for the delay in filing their respective appeals, the Court is of the view that the delay was for bonafide reasons and ought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
