1984 (2) TMI 324 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal in disposing of the case sitting singly.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was filed by a certified goldsmith from Bihar against the rejection of his application for a gold dealer's license. The appellant argued that his application was rejected arbitrarily without a personal hearing, denying principles of natural justice. He claimed entitlement to the license under Section 27 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. The appellant's consultant emphasized that the appellant's turnover exceeded the prescribed limit and that there was a demand for gold in the town of Arrah. Reference was made to relevant legal provisions and judgments supporting the appellant's position.

The respondent, represented by a Junior Departmental Representative, contended that the appellant had applied under Section 27(5) of the Act, which did not necessitate a personal hearing before rejection. The respondent cited judgments from the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Delhi High Court to support the argument that oral hearings were not mandatory if written representations were considered. It was further argued that there was no requirement to grant a license based on the demand for gold, and reliance was placed on the order of the Additional Collector to dismiss the appeal.

Upon hearing both parties, the Member (J) of the Appellate Tribunal noted that jurisdiction was a critical issue that had not been raised by either party. Referring to relevant provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, it was highlighted that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was determined by statute. The Member clarified that the case did not fall under the provisions allowing for disposal by a single member, as the matter pertained to the appellant's right to a gold dealer's license and not to confiscation or penalties. Consequently, the Member transferred the case to a two-member bench to ensure compliance with jurisdictional requirements and uphold the principles of justice without delving into the merits of the appeal.