1987 (9) TMI 199 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of application for gold dealer's license under the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969.
- Consideration of appellant's case under Rule 2(f) proviso (e) and (f) of the Rules.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras, involved an appeal against the rejection of an application for a gold dealer's license under the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. The appellant's application was denied by the authorities based on a decrease in turnover for the preceding three years. The appellant's counsel contended that the application should have been considered for preferential treatment under Rule 2(f) proviso (e) and (f) of the Rules. The counsel argued that the appellant could claim a license as a partner of a firm for five years under Rule 2(f) proviso (e) and simultaneously seek a license as an employee with five years of experience under Rule 2(f) proviso (f). The counsel referred to government instructions supporting this position. The Tribunal heard both parties and examined the submissions.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the rejection of the appellant's application under the general category due to decreased turnover was valid as per Rule 2(f) of the Rules. The counsel's plea for consideration under Rule 2(f) proviso (e) and (f) was deemed misconceived. The Tribunal clarified that Rule 2(f) proviso (e) pertains to granting a license to a former partner of a licensed firm, provided the individual applies within 60 days of leaving the firm. Rule 2(f) proviso (f) relates to individuals employed by a licensed dealer for at least five years. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was still a partner in a licensed firm, making Rule 2(f) proviso (e) inapplicable. The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 2(f) proviso (f) would only apply if the person had left employment and applied within 60 days, which was not the case here. Consequently, the rejection of the appellant's application for a gold dealer's license was upheld, as the appellant did not meet the criteria under Rule 2(f) proviso (e) or (f).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and clarified that the appellant could submit a fresh application for a license in accordance with the law. The judgment underscores the importance of meeting the specific requirements outlined in the rules for obtaining a gold dealer's license and highlights the necessity for applicants to adhere to the prescribed conditions for eligibility under the relevant provisions.