9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce mentioning two grounds, namely that he was working with M/s. Pushpak Jewellers, Bombay, from 1973 to 1982, his name had been mentioned in GS-6 form of M/s. Pushpam Jewellers for the said period and which are available in the office of the Deputy Collector. Secondly, that he got a Goldsmith Certificate No. BHJ/GS/44/83 and he has been maintaining the accounts in the form of GS-13 of the business conducted by him. In the Annexure to the application the applicant furnished the turnover as under: Period Weight 1-1-1984 to 31-12-1984 2090.050 gms. 1 -1 -1985 to 15-8-1985 2560.900 gms. 3. The Superintendent issued a show cause notice dated 25-9-1986 alleging that the appellant herein does not fulfil the condition as laid down in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lower authority has definitely entered two different figures against the column 'turn-over' in two different orders for the year 1983 and if the order of the lower authority is accepted in the case quoted by the appellant, then there has been increased in the demand for gold ornaments as there is increase in trade and turnover. On the basis of the findings recorded, it is clear that the appellant has experience in dealing in gold ornaments as well as making and manufacturing of gold ornaments. The ratio of CEGAT (North Regional Bench) Judgment contained in Order No. A/169/87-NRB dated 18-3-1987 is aptly applicable in this case. But the precise point is as to whether the appellant has the requisite experience, the appellant have not replied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce. In any case the Licensing Authority ought to have regard to all the Clauses of Rule 2 of the Rules and not merely to one of the Clause of Rule 2. In support of his contention Shri Gujral relied on several judgments. He particularly relied on the Allahabad High Court decision reported in Section II page 375 Cen-Cus Manual 1984 Edition wherein the Allahabad High Court had held that the salesman has a requisite experience of dealing in gold. Shri Gujral also placed reliance on the various decisions of this Bench particularly with the one reported in 1988 (17) ECR page 389 CEGAT (WRB) Shri Shantilal G. Jain v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) Bombay . He referred to the finding of this Bench which was to the effect that : "In processing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion in the show cause notice that licence cannot be issued on the ground that the previous experience has not been established. 7A. Rule 2 of the Rules sets out the matters to which regard shall be had before issuing the licence. It requires the licensing authority to have regard to the matters enumerated in Clause (a) to (f) of the Rule 2. Clause (b) reads : "the experience of the applicant with regard to the dealing in, or making, manufacturing, preparing, repairing or polishing of ornaments;" This Rule nowhere lays down the period of experience. The authorities below have totally ignored this clause of Rule 2. 8. There may be a justification for rejecting the application on the ground that the applicant does not qualify for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
