9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date of receipt of his ibid order. 2. One Shri Pravin Achaldas Parekh, the respondent herein, vide his application in GS-6, dated 27-3-1986 applied for grant of a gold dealers licence and deposited the requisite fees for licence of Rs. 100. The matter was investigated by the Deputy Collector of Customs (Preventive), Gold Control, who vide his order dated 5-3-87 rejected the application of the respondent for grant of such a licence on the ground that the respondent had not fulfilled the requirement of Rule 2 (b) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969, inasmuch as the respondents did not process the requisite experience in dealing in gold or making, manufacturing, preparing, repairing or polishing of ornaments. Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b) of Rule 2. (iii) The provisions of Rule 2 are mandatory in nature and that the observation of the Collector (Appeals) to the contrary is erroneous. (iv) The Collector (Appeals) ought not to have overlooked the provisions of Rule 2 (f) of the said Rules. (v) There was an error in holding that the respondent had sufficient experience for obtaining a gold dealers licence. 6. We have heard Shri C.P. Arya, the Senior Departmental Representative, of these points. Having heard him at length we found it not necessary to call upon them other side to address us. 7. Before dealing with the other points urged before us, we may make it clear that the provisions of Clause (f) of Rule 2 of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules would n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the SDR that the name of the respondent does not figure in GS-6 application of M/s. Alankar Jewellers. In our opinion that itself is not sufficient to hold that the respondent does not possess any experience and what he claims in his affidavit is false. If the licensing authority was suspicious about the genuineness of the respondent s claim, it ought to have made further investigation in this matter and brought on record the facts which would falsify the affidavit filed by the respondent. In our opinion, the statement made by the respondent should prevail over the vague type of evidence on which the licensing authority has based its decision. 10. It may also be observed that the respondent has even now been holding a certificate of gol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
