BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

1. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 1426/1999 and WP(C) 1439/1999 on 14.07.2011.

2. The only issue that arises for consideration is whether the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Properties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) had not committed an error in law in dismissing the appellants’ common appeal filed purportedly under Section 12(4) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as ‘SAFEMA’] on the ground that the said appeal was beyond the time prescribed under the said provision.

3. Some facts would be necessary to decide these appeals. The competent authority under SAFEMA passed an order dated 14.07.1998 for forfeiture of several properties under Section 7 of SAFEMA. The common appeal filed on behalf of the appellants herein before the said Tribunal was filed on 20.10.1998. It is obvious that the appeal was beyond the period of 60 days from the passing of the order dated 14.07.1998 by the competent authority. We may point out, at this stage, that the appellants had admitted in their said appeal before the Tribunal that the order dated 14.07.1998 was served upon them on 29/30th July, 1998. This admission has clearly been made in paragraph 3 as well as paragraph 8 of the appeal. The clear admission was to the following effect:-

“that the said order dated 14.07.1998 was received by the appellant sometime around 29-30th of July, 1998”.

A condonation of delay application was also filed along with the said appeal before the said Tribunal. Paragraph 4 of the said condonation of delay application reads as under:-

“That the impugned order dated 14.7.1998, was served on the appellant on 29/30th July, 1998, and the appellant should have preferred an appeal within 45 days therefrom. The appellants are illiterate and pardanashini widows and the appellant no.1 has the duty of bringing up four minor children and an ailing aged mother who is appellant no.2 in addition to other social obligations.”

4. The Tribunal took up the application for condonation of delay and disposed of the same by its order dated 26.10.1998. By an order of the same date, the said application had been dismissed in the following manner:-

“3. The order dated 14.7.1998 was served on the appellants on 29/30th July 1998, whereas the order dated 14.10.1998 was served on the appellants on 17.10.1998. Hence the appeal so far as the order dated 14.7.1998 is concerned, was filed with delay on 20.10.1998. The appellant, therefore, filed his application for condonation of delay in presenting the appeal against the order dated 14.7.1998.

4. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

5. The copy of the order dated 14.7.1998 was served on the appellants on 29/30th July, 1998 and the appeal was presented on after 20th October 1998 on the 81st day after the service of the order. Under Sec. 12(4) of SAFEMA, an appeal against an order under Sec.7 or sub-section (1) of Sec.9 or Sec.10 has to be preferred within 45 days from the date on which the order is served on the appellant. As per the proviso to sub-section 4, the Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 45 days, but not after 60 days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Admittedly, the appeal was presented beyond the period of 60 days. This Tribunal had earlier held by an order dated 1st April 1997 in F.P.A. No.3 of 1997 in Smt. Pallavi Haribhai Tandel vs. Competent Authority, Ahmadabad, reported in ITR 226 (1997) page 1 that the Tribunal has no power to entertain any application for condonation of delay, if the appeal preferred beyond 60 days from the date or the receipt of the order under appeal. Following the decision, we hold that the appeal having been filed beyond 60 days after receipt of the order under appeal, is barred by limitation and this Tribunal has no power to c