1989 (12) TMI 159 - AT - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against non-renewal of Gold Dealer's Licence under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 based on past offence.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was directed against the order upholding the rejection of the renewal application of the Gold Dealer's Licence by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The appellant, a licensed Gold Dealer, had applied for renewal on 1-11-1985. The Department found that the appellant had been involved in an offence case during 1985, resulting in a redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Trichy. The renewal application was rejected under Rule 3(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969, which allows refusal if the applicant had been involved in any previous offence.

The appellant's counsel argued that the non-renewal was unjustified, emphasizing the nature and gravity of the offence. It was highlighted that the appellant was a traditional goldsmith with no other profession, and the offence involved only gold ornaments, not contraband primary gold. Reference was made to a Tribunal decision stating that refusal to renew a licence should be limited to serious and persistent contraventions. The appellant's clean past record and the Department's renewal of licences for other dealers with similar previous offences were also pointed out.

The Department's Senior D.R. contended that the renewal was correctly rejected after the appellant's offence was upheld at the appellate stage. The appellant pleaded guilty to the offence involving a significant quantity of gold ornaments. Lists of other dealers whose licences were renewed despite past offences were presented by both parties.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and relevant legal provisions. It noted that non-renewal of a licence should not be automatic for a past offence, and the nature and gravity of the offence must be assessed as it affects the dealer's livelihood. Referring to previous decisions and government instructions, the Tribunal emphasized the need for discretion in non-renewal cases. It was observed that the Deputy Collector had not adequately considered the nature and seriousness of the offence in the appellant's case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the case warranted a remand to the original authority for a fresh determination on whether the offence justified non-renewal of the dealer's licence. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for de novo proceedings, allowing the appellant an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the law.