1988 (9) TMI 216 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty and confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act in 1979.
2. Application for Gold Dealers Licence in 1983 and subsequent show cause notices.
3. Show cause notice for cancellation of Gold Dealers Licence in 1988.
4. Legal validity of the order cancelling the licence in 1984.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a partner in M/s. Mehta Emporium, faced penalty and confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act in 1979. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty on the appellant, distinguishing it from another partner. Despite being acquitted by the Criminal Court, the penalty stood. However, no contraventions occurred post the issuance of the Gold Dealers Licence in 1984.

2. In 1983, the appellant applied for a Gold Dealers Licence in his name. Subsequently, show cause notices were issued regarding the penalty imposed in 1979. The licensing authority issued the licence in 1984, renewed until 1989. In 1985, a prosecution was initiated against the appellant, leading to a show cause notice in 1988 for potential cancellation of the licence.

3. The Collector of Customs issued an order in 1988 to cancel the Gold Dealers Licence citing past contraventions. However, no allegations of post-licensing contraventions were made. The grounds for cancellation related to pre-licensing events, which did not justify revocation post the licence issuance in 1984. The order failed to distinguish between the licences of M/s. Mehta Emporium and the appellant.

4. The legal validity of cancelling the licence issued in 1984 was questioned. The relevant provision, Section 50 of the Gold (Control) Act, did not apply as no post-licensing contraventions were proven. The order to cancel the licence was deemed illegal and unsustainable in law. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between pre and post-licensing events when considering the cancellation of licences under the Gold (Control) Act. The decision emphasized the need for specific allegations and proof of contraventions post-licensing to justify revocation, ensuring legal validity and adherence to procedural fairness.