1985 (7) TMI 221 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Application for a gold dealer licence rejection, interpretation of proviso (f) to Rule 2(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969, eligibility criteria for a dealer licence, consideration of employment history for licensing, increase in the number of licensed dealers without proportionate turnover growth.

Analysis:

1. The judgment revolves around the rejection of an application for a gold dealer licence by the Deputy Collector, which was later overturned by the Collector (Appeals). The central issue pertains to the interpretation of proviso (f) to Rule 2(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969, and whether the applicant met the eligibility criteria for obtaining the licence.

2. The Deputy Collector rejected the application based on the increasing number of dealers in previous years without proportional turnover growth and the applicant's alleged failure to satisfy proviso (f) to Rule 2(f). The Collector (Appeals) agreed that there was no need for more dealers in the city but differed on the interpretation of the employment history of the applicant.

3. The contention arose regarding the applicant's compliance with proviso (f) to Rule 2(f), which required five years of employment under a licensed dealer. The Department argued that the applicant did not fulfill this requirement as he had not been continuously employed for five years under a single dealer. In contrast, the respondent presented evidence of his employment history under two different persons, claiming that his experience met the criteria.

4. The judgment delves into the specific language of proviso (f) and its context within the Licensing Rules. It emphasizes that the provision contemplates continuous employment under a single dealer for a minimum of five years to qualify for the benefit. The ruling highlights the distinction between employees and partners in terms of the continuity of employment required for licensing consideration.

5. The conclusion reached is that the applicant did not meet the criteria of proviso (f) to Rule 2(f) due to the fragmented nature of his employment history under different dealers. As a result, the application should be evaluated under Rule 2(a) to (f) without the benefit of proviso (f). The judgment also upholds the decision that the increasing number of licensed dealers without a corresponding increase in turnover does not justify issuing additional licences.

6. Ultimately, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the decision of the Collector (Appeals) and reinstating the rejection of the licence application by the Deputy Collector. The judgment underscores the importance of continuous employment under a single dealer for the requisite period to qualify for licensing benefits, thereby clarifying the interpretation of proviso (f) to Rule 2(f) in the context of gold dealer licences.