Page 157 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ]ASSTT. DIR., DTE. OF ENFORCEMENT, NEW DELHI v. OMAR ALI OBAID BALSHARAF 67

for the Appellant pointed out the difference between the expression
used in the Arbitration Act as construed by Popular Construction
(supra) and its absence in the proviso in Section 421(3). For the rea-
sons given above, we are of the view that this would also make no
difference in view of the language of the proviso to Section 421(3)
which contains mandatory or peremptory negative language and
speaks of a second period not exceeding 45 days, which would have
the same effect as the expression “but not thereafter” used in Sec-
tion 34(3) proviso of the Arbitration Act,
1996.” (emphasis supplied)”
32. In case of Standard Chartered Bank v. MSTC Limited : 2020 (3) SCALE
124, the Supreme Court held as under :
“14. The peremptory language of Rule 5A would also make it clear that
beyond 30 days there is no power to condone delay. We may also note that
Rule 5A was added in 1997 with a longer period within which to file a re-
view petition, namely, 60 days. This period was cut down, by amendment,
with effect from 4-11-2016, to 30 days. From this two things are clear : one,
whether in the original or unamended provision, there is no separate power
to condone delay, as is contained in Section 20(3) of the Act; and second,
that the period of 60 days was considered too long and cut down to 30 days
thereby evincing an intention that review petitions, if they are to be filed,
should be within a shorter period of limitation - otherwise they would not
be maintainable.”
33. It is an admitted case of applicant that initially appeal was filed on
24-12-2019 vide diary No. 1621374/2019 and same was returned under objections
which is still pending in the Registry. Whereas, in para 5 of the captioned appeal,
it is specifically mentioned that no other appeal is filed or pending before this
Court or any other Court.
34. Learned Counsel for applicant submits that instead of re-filing the
appeal filed on 24-12-2019, the applicant/appellant has filed the present appeal
by mistake.
35. This fact was not brought to the notice of the Court when matter
was taken up on 23-1-2020 and on the said date, Learned Senior Counsel appear-
ing for respondent No. 2 strongly argued that the captioned appeal is filed after
120 days which is the maximum limit prescribed under Section 42 of PMLA and
the same is fully covered by judgment passed in Union of India v. Popular
Construction Co. (supra).
36. As per Section 42 of PMLA, 2002, any person, aggrieved by any de-
cision or order of the Appellate Tribunal, may file an appeal before the High
Court within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision or order of
the Appellate Tribunal to him on any question of law or fact arising out of such
order, provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was
prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow
it to be filed within a further period not exceeding 60 days.
37. Fact remains that order of the Appellate Tribunal was pronounced
on 29-8-2019, however, as argued by Learned Counsel for applicant, the same
was received on 11-9-2019 whereas the captioned appeal is filed on 22-1-2020. As
per Section 42 of PMLA, 2002 as mentioned above, the maximum limit to con-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  157