9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cence has been rejected. First one is that the appellant had been penalised in 1979 to the extent of Rs. 500/- for improper maintenance of accounts vide Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority has held that in terms of Rule 2(e)(i) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) the appellant would not be entitled to a gold dealers licence. Secondly it has also been held that the appellant does not fulfill the condition in proviso (b) to Rule 2(f) of the said Rules inasmuch as the adjudicating authority has felt that his educational background is not sufficient to generate a belief of reasonable grounds that the appellant would b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a restrictive approach to be adopted in granting licence for gold dealers but this restrictive approach has been relaxed for different persons enumerated in various clauses of the proviso to Rule 2 (f). Minor commissions and omissions in maintenance of accounts as have been detailed in the impugned order should not lead the authorities to conclude that the appellant would not be able to discharge his duties as a licensed gold dealer. Human conduct is not infallible. Even the existing licensed gold dealers continue to commit errors and omissions in maintenance of accounts and yet their licences are not revoked. All the discrepancies pointed out by the learned adjudicating authority, as emphasised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity. 4. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. We find sufficient force in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant that various clauses of the proviso to Rule 2(f) of the said Rules is to be read in a more positive manner because these clauses are relaxations to the restrictive approach spelt out in Rule 2(f). Therefore, minor discrepancies pointed out in detail by the learned Deputy Collector should not debar the appellant from obtaining the gold dealers licence. After all he has been carrying on the work as a certified goldsmith and maintaining the accounts to the satisfaction of the authorities barring one instance in which he has been imposed a minor penalty of Rs.500/-as early as 1979. A few ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act as used in Section 19(1) (e) of the Defense of India Act has observed as follows: This requirement only implies that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act must be taken into consideration. It does not mean that the Arbitrator is strictly bound by the terms of Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Reliance placed by the learned adjudicating authority on the observation of the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Prem Nath Khanna v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut is not well founded because the case before that Court was of a person against whom the proceedings were pending and who had applied for a licence. The facts of that case are not relevant to the facts of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
