1985 (8) TMI 218 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of Gold Dealer's license application by Deputy Collector of Central Excise.
2. Direction by Collector of Central Excise to reexamine the application with reference to turnover and number of dealers.
3. Tribunal's order to remand the case considering the number of gold dealers in Ambattur Township.
4. Applicant's challenge regarding the interpretation of Rule 2(f) of Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules.
5. Tribunal's decision to equate Padi Township with a town for licensing purposes.

Analysis:

1. The judgment revolves around the initial rejection of a Gold Dealer's license application by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise based on the turnover in Chingleput District for the preceding years. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) directed a reexamination considering Padi's industrialized nature and proximity to Madras City, emphasizing the need to evaluate the application beyond just Chingleput District.

2. Upon appeal, the Tribunal concurred with the decision to remand the case, directing the Deputy Collector to assess the number of gold dealers in the ten revenue villages of Ambattur Township and their turnover for granting the license. The Tribunal's order highlighted the unique status of Ambattur as a municipal township, distinct from a village or town, necessitating a specific approach in determining the demand for ornaments.

3. The applicant challenged the Tribunal's decision, questioning the correctness of considering the turnover and number of dealers in Ambattur Township instead of the district where Padi Village was located, as prescribed by Rule 2(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules. The issue raised pertained to the interpretation of the rule and whether the Tribunal's approach aligned with the statutory provisions.

4. In response to the challenge, the Tribunal's decision to equate Padi Township with a town for licensing purposes was scrutinized. The Tribunal's reasoning behind treating a township akin to a town due to its concentrated demand and larger volume of activities was deliberated upon. The question of whether such an interpretation was legally sound under Rule 2(f) was a focal point in determining the correctness of the Tribunal's decision.

5. Consequently, the matter was referred to the High Court of Judicature at Madras to address the fundamental legal question of whether considering Padi Township as a 'town' for the gold dealer's license issuance aligned with Rule 2(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, thereby seeking judicial clarity on the interpretation and application of the statutory provisions in the context of the case.