TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (12) TMI 555
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a and Kusum Kumari Mishra for the reason of acknowledging debt creating right in favour of the foreign party namely EURO, West Germany to receive payment in contravention of section 9(1)(c) of FER Act, 1973. 3. This appeal is filed in the name of partnership firm M/s. Mishra Carpet Palace and its 3 partners but court fees paid only for a single appeal. When this defect is pointed out to the Counsel appearing for the appellants, he made an oral prayer that these appeals may be treated as having been filed by partnership firm alone and any other names, i.e., of partners can be disregarded. Therefore, this appeal is taken up as an appeal filed by partnership firm only. Ld. Counsel has subsequently filed a formal application for withdrawal of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d procedural provisions providing therein that adjudication proceedings can be held after a complaint is filed under section 16 before the adjudicating authority which was totally absent in FER Act, 1973. Under the provisions of FER Act, 1973 adjudicating officer can take notice of contravention by issuing a show-cause notice whereafter the noticee is required to file a reply and proceedings can be held if the adjudicating officer is not satisfied with the reply, if any, to the show-cause notice. The argument of the Ld. Counsel that after repeal and replacement of FER Act, 1973 new procedure prescribed under FEMA, 1999 will apply is fallacious because section 49(4) of FEMA, 1999 clearly save the provisions of repealed FER Act, 1973. It is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ER Board in continuation of adjudication proceedings under FER Act, 1973 will have to be governed by the provisions of FER Act, 1973. Therefore, this appeal has to be decided under the law proper which is none else but FER Act, 1973. Therefore, the argument that this appeal is filed under section 19(2) of FEMA, 1999 is fallacious and does not contain any merit. 7. It is well-settled in law that whenever a law is altered during the pendency of any action, the remedy or the rights of the parties are required to be decided according to the law as it existed when the action began unless new statute shows intention to vary such rights. There is no contrary, explicit or implicit intention available found in section 49 of FEMA, 1999. Rather a sav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from a consideration of the relevant provisions of the re-enacted enactment and the mere absence of saving clause is, by itself, not material for consideration of all the relevant provisions of the new enactment. In other words, a clear legislative intention of the re-enacted enactment has to be inferred and gathered whether it intended to reserve all the rights and liabilities of a repealed statute intact or modify or to obliterate them altogether." 9. Thus, it is well settled that effect of repeal of a statute and replacement thereof by another statute cannot obliterate rights acquired or accrued and liabilities incurred during its operation but permit continuation or institution of any legal proceeding or records to any remedy whi....