1987 (3) TMI 209 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of gold dealer's license application based on declining demand for ornaments.
2. Consideration of turnover and growth potential of the town for license application.
3. Definition of turnover and inclusion of standard gold bars in turnover calculation.
4. Claim of hereditary business and non-renewal of previous license due to illness.
5. Failure to appeal against the order and the application treated as a fresh license request.

Analysis:

1. The appellant firm's application for a gold dealer's license was rejected due to a decline in demand for ornaments in the town, as indicated by the turnover of existing gold dealers in the past three years. The rejection was based on Rule 2(f)(ii) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969, which considers the demand for ornaments in the city or town. The original authority relied on this provision to reject the application.

2. In the appeal before the Collector of Customs, the appellant argued that the town's prosperity and growth potential were not adequately considered. Despite pointing out an increasing trend in turnover for the year 1983-84, the lower appellate authority rejected these arguments, stating that prosperity and population growth should reflect in increased turnover, which was not the case. The authority emphasized that figures for 1984 were not relevant under Rule 2(f)(ii).

3. The appellant contended that turnover was not defined in Rule 2 and suggested including the turnover of standard gold bars in the calculation. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that turnover, as defined in Explanation II of Rule 3, only includes the sale of ornaments and articles, excluding standard gold bars. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument regarding the inclusion of standard gold bars in turnover calculation.

4. Another plea by the appellant was the claim of a hereditary business in the gold trade for 30 years, citing non-renewal of a previous license due to the proprietor's illness. The appellant argued that illness should have been considered for the renewal of the license. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant did not appeal against the Collector's order, treating the 1983 application as a fresh request, not a renewal.

5. The Tribunal ultimately rejected the appeal, stating that all pleas of the appellant failed. However, it clarified that the appellant could apply afresh for a gold dealer's license, subject to consideration by the authorities in accordance with the law. The appeal was dismissed, and the application was treated as a new license request, allowing the appellants to reapply.