9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (2) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals, I propose to dispose them of through a single order. 2. The brief of facts involved in all these appeals are that the appellants are holding Gold Dealers License to deal in gold at Amritsar (three) and one at Navasari in Gujarat. On account of disturbed condition in Punjab, the appellant want to shift their business from Amritsar to Bombay and they have applied for Gold Dealers Licence in Bombay. The fourth Appellant wants to shift his business to Bombay for certain compelling reasons but he has not listed such reasons. The appellants are also prepared to give an undertaking to the Gold Control Department that they would surrender their Gold Dealers Licence to carry on business at Amritsar on getting the Gold Dealers Licence in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise Collectorate, New Delhi has issued Gold Dealers Licence in Delhi to those Gold Dealers who were holding licence in Amritsar. The copy of one such letter issued by the Central Excise Collectorate (F. No. XVII-7/37/86/348) is produced on record. (ii) The appellants have also relied upon a judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of P.I. Kuriakose v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trivandrum Others (Reported in Cen-cus Manual of Gold Control-2nd Edition by D.N. Kohli and K.R. Mehta at Page 426). It has been held in the said judgment that in view of the admitted fact that subsequent application made by the 4th respondent a licence was issued to him for carrying on business as a gold dealer at Ranni, there is no justification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to be set aside. 3. During the course of personal hearing, the authorised representative of the appellants explained the case as above. 4. I have considered the facts of all the cases together with the record of personal hearing. It is seen from the records of the case that the Deputy Collector has not considered the case of the appellants in the light of Rule 2 (f) as well as on humanitarian grounds. He has himself quoted figures of turnover in his orders which prove beyond doubt that there has been rise in the number of dealers and also in average annual turnover in grams, when the figures for the year 1984 and 1985 are compared. In fact there has been increase in the number of dealers also when the figures of 1983 are compared with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eputy Collector has himself quoted the Circular No. 27/78, dated 28-9-1978 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, which clearly stipulates that licensed existing Dealers in other City/Town other than the one in which the Dealer holds the licence may not be refused. In view of the figures quoted by the Deputy Collector in his orders, it cannot be his case that the grant of licence is not justified under Rule 2 (f) of the Licensing Rules. It is also not his case that the appellants otherwise are not eligible for the grant of licence in Greater Bombay in lieu of their licence at Amritsar. I have already quoted above one such order by the Central Excise Collectorate, New Delhi wherein a Gold Deal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
