9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/87. The appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dated 11-9-1987 confirming the order of the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, dated 18-6-1987 and rejecting the appellant s application for renewal of the Gold Dealers, Licence for the years 1986-1988. 2A. The appellant was a licensed gold dealer having a licence under the name and style of M/s. Sugan Jewellers at Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields, and applied for renewal of his gold dealers licence on 3-12-1985 for three years ending 31-12-1988. The application was rejected by the original authority on the ground that the appellant was found to have contravened the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act in 1983 in respect of no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of Rule 3 of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 a dealer shall be qualified for the renewal of licence held by him only if he fulfilled the various conditions enumerated thereunder and under Clause (f) of Rule 3 the condition is that the applicant should not have contravened any provision of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The learned D.R. urged that there is no provision under law to relax the condition and further submitted that the ruling of the Tribunal was with reference to a case of lesser gravity in nature than the present one. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. The appellant s application for renewal of gold dealer licence for the three years 1986-1988 was rejected by the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be characterised as a very serious offence. We would like to take note of the fact that the Tribunal in the case of M. Sadananda Pai v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 602, has had occasion to consider a case of non-renewal on grounds of contravention by the applicant and held that non-declaration by a dealer of certain ornaments found in his residential premises could not be viewed as a very serious offence so as to disentitle him from the grant of a renewal of the licence. In the decision of the Bench in the case of K.P. Raman cited before us by the learned counsel a reference has been made to the above ruling and also to a decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dated 7-7-1987 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant. Taking all these factors into consideration and also keeping in mind the ratio of the Bench rulings referred to above and also bearing in mind the fact that in a similar case of contravention in regard to Kalpana Jewellery as late as on 7th July, 1987 the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, has passed an order directing renewal of gold dealers licence, which has not been challenged by the Department till date, we are inclined to hold that in the facts and circumstances of this case the contravention of the appellant in the year 1983 could be treated as not a serious one so as to warrant non-renewal of Licence under Rule 3(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. We would like to make it clear that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
