9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (1) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lers Licence. This licence was valid up to 31-12-1985. The appellant applied for the renewal of the said licence for a further period of three years i.e. up to 31-12-1988. But the licencing authority instead of granting renewal issued a show cause notice as to why renewal should not be refused and why licence itself should not be cancelled. 3. The Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Ahmedabad, who held the adjudication rejected the appellants application for renewal of the Gold Dealers Licence and also ordered cancellation of the licence. Hence this appeal. 4. During the hearing of this appeal Shri Mehta, firstly contended that in the show cause notice issued to the appellant he was not called upon to show cause for violation of clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar v. Collector of Central Excise, Madurai. The third submission of Shri Mehta was that the appellant by training and tradition has been in gold business and he cannot enter into any other trade or profession or trade of avocation and in the circumstances refusal to renew the licence would be depriving the appellant of the means of livelihood. The fourth contention of Shri Mehta was that the learned Collector ought to have given another opportunity to the appellant to make written submission before passing the order. The order passed by Collector was in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, it requires to be set aside. 5. In the memorandum of appeal yet another ground was urged namely that the Collector had founded the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exparte. The appellant acknowledged that letter on 16-1-1987. He did not choose to file any reply nor requested for personal hearing. In the circumstances, Shri Mondal submitted that it cannot be said that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice. The third submission of Shri Mondal was that under law the Collector was not required to wait until the final culmination of the appeals filed by the dealer against the adjudication orders passed against him. However, Shri Mondal, urged that even the appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed. The fourth submission of Shri Mondal was that it is not correct to contend that Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules are identically worded. He urged under Rule 3 if any of the conditions set o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier in the show cause notice the allegation regarding contravention of the provisions of Rule 3(f) of the Rules has been specifically alleged. It is true while calling upon the applicant to show cause no reference is made to Rule 3(f) but reference had been made to Section 27 of the Section Act. Rule 3 of the Rules reads - "Conditions for the renewal of a licence - A dealer shall be qualified for the renewal of the licence held by him if he fulfils the following conditions namely (a)....... (b)....... (c)....... (d)....... (e)....... (ee)...... (f) that the applicant has not contravened any provision of Gold (Control) Act, 1968, or any rule or order made thereunder or of Part XIIA of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 or of any othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is Section 27 which authorises the rejection and not Rule 3. Therefore, while issuing show cause notice though it is necessary to specify the grounds on which the rejection of renewal application are sought to made it is not necessary to specify the Rule or any clause of the Rule calling upon the dealer to show cause. It is suffice if the show cause notice mentions the Section under which the rejection will be done. 10. As has been seen earlier in the show cause notice issued to the appellant the contravention of Rule 3(f) as well as Section 27 had been specifically alleged beside the applicant was asked to show cause why rejection should not be made under Section 27 of the Act. Show cause notice is valid in law. The Collector's order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Customs Act. In the show cause notice it was alleged that in two adjudication proceedings the appellant was found guilty of contravention of the provision of the Gold Control Act as well as Customs Act and he was also penalised. Shri Mondal had submitted that the appeals filed against those adjudication orders were dismissed. Shri Mehta did not controvert the statement of Shri Mondal. But he only submitted that he was making separate applications for setting aside the dismissal order. The fact remains that at the time when the licencing authority cancelled the licence there was a valid adjudication order both under Customs as well as Gold Control Acts and in those adjudication orders the appellant had been penalised. Therefore, it cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
