1989 (2) TMI 274 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of the renewal application under Rule 3(a) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969.
2. Compliance with the turnover requirement under Rule 3(ee) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969.
3. Applicability of the Madras High Court judgment on Rule 3(ee).
4. Fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Timeliness of the Renewal Application:
The appellant submitted the renewal application 5-1/2 months late, contrary to Rule 3(a), which mandates submission at least one month before the expiry of the licence. The Deputy Collector rejected the application for this delay, and the rejection was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The appellant argued that the rule is regulatory, not mandatory, and cited instances where the department issued renewed licences after delays. However, the tribunal found no discretion for condonation in Section 27(6)(b) and Rule 3(a), affirming the rejection based on the delayed submission.

2. Compliance with Turnover Requirement:
The appellant had no business turnover during the licence period, violating Rule 3(ee), which requires a minimum turnover unless justified. The appellant cited financial problems, illness, and family obligations as reasons for not conducting business. The tribunal found these explanations inadequate and incongruent, noting that advancing age and unspecified financial difficulties were not sufficient reasons. The tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision, stating that the appellant did not meet the conditions for renewal under Rule 3(ee).

3. Applicability of the Madras High Court Judgment:
The appellant referenced the Madras High Court judgment in 'Sri B. Narasimha Chettiar v. Central Government', which struck down Rule 3(ee). However, the tribunal noted that Rule 3(ee) was amended in December 1975, post the judgment. The tribunal also distinguished the present case from the 'Shantilal Jain' case cited by the appellant, as the latter dealt with Rule 2, concerning the issuance of licences, not renewal. Therefore, the tribunal found the Madras High Court judgment inapplicable.

4. Fundamental Right to Carry on Business:
The appellant argued that the right to trade is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The respondent countered that this right is subject to reasonable restrictions in public interest, as per Article 19(b). The tribunal agreed with the respondent, emphasizing that the Gold (Control) Act is a regulatory enactment aimed at controlling the gold trade for economic and financial interests. The tribunal concluded that the right to do business in gold is subject to the conditions of the licence and upheld the regulatory framework.

Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the rejection of the renewal application based on both the delayed submission and the failure to meet the turnover requirement. The appeal was rejected, affirming the orders of the lower authorities.