1984 (6) TMI 228 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal.
2. Validity of the order passed by the Collector regarding the induction of a new partner in a partnership firm.

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT BOMBAY arose from an Order-in-Original by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, refusing to induct Smt. Chandrikaben M. Bhavsar as a partner in a partnership firm. The key contention was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Departmental Representative argued that the order was passed by the Collector as a delegate of the Gold Control Administrator, making it non-appealable. However, the appellants contended that the Collector acted in his capacity as the Collector of Central Excise, and therefore, an appeal to the Tribunal under Section 81(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was permissible. Upon analysis, it was found that the Collector, authorized by the Administrator, exercised powers independently, not as a delegate. Consequently, the Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, making it maintainable before the Tribunal.

Validity of the Order Regarding Partner Induction:
The core issue revolved around the refusal to induct Smt. Chandrikaben as a partner in the existing partnership firm following the retirement of her husband. The appellants argued that her induction was necessary due to her husband's retirement, and the rejection by the Collector was unjustified. They contended that the rule relied upon by the Collector was not applicable as it pertained to issuing a fresh license, not inducting a partner. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative argued that her induction would constitute a new partnership, requiring a fresh license application. The Tribunal noted that if a stranger were inducted, the partnership's constitution would change, necessitating a new license application. As Smt. Chandrikaben was not a partner previously, her induction would alter the partnership, making the appeal meritless. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, upholding the Collector's decision on partner induction.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT BOMBAY affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the appeal and upheld the Collector's decision to refuse the induction of Smt. Chandrikaben as a partner in the existing partnership firm, as it would have necessitated a new license application due to the change in partnership constitution.