Skip to content


D. Ravindramohan Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Decided On
Reported in(1984)(16)ELT466Tri(Chennai)
AppellantD. Ravindramohan
RespondentCollector of Central Excise
Excerpt:
.....be pleased to order inclusion of the appellant as a partner in the firm of m/s.sumangal jewellers, madras-17, gold dealers licence no. 15/78.2. this appeal coming up for orders upon perusing the records and upon hearing the arguments of shri k. saravanai, advocate for the appellant and upon hearing the arguments of shri a. vijayaraghavan, departmental representative for the respondent, the tribunal makes the following order : 3. aggrieved by the order of the additional collector of central excise, madras, in c. no. xvi1/7/19/78-g.c. dated 20-1-1982 the appellant filed an appeal before the appellate collector of central excise, madras. the said appeal is being treated as an appeal before us.4. we had kept this case back on the date of last hearing as we wanted to understand the policy.....
Judgment:
1. Appeal under Section-81 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 praying that in the circumstances stated therein, the Tribunal will be pleased to order inclusion of the appellant as a partner in the firm of M/s.

Sumangal Jewellers, Madras-17, Gold Dealers Licence No. 15/78.

2. This appeal coming up for orders upon perusing the records and upon hearing the arguments of Shri K. Saravanai, Advocate for the appellant and upon hearing the arguments of Shri A. Vijayaraghavan, Departmental Representative for the respondent, the Tribunal makes the following order : 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Madras, in C. No. XVI1/7/19/78-G.C. dated 20-1-1982 the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. The said appeal is being treated as an appeal before us.

4. We had kept this case back on the date of last hearing as we wanted to understand the policy adopted by Government in the licensing of partnership firms, particularly with reference to Rule 2 of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. The Departmental Representative stated to-day that according to the instructions issued by the Government in December, 1978, so long as there is enough expertise in the partnership firm as a whole, there is no objection to the licensing of partnership ; impliedly the experience of any of the partners will not be relevant; but that of the partners put together namely the partnership firm is the deciding factor. In the present case, the request to induct the appellant Ravindramohan as a partner was rejected on the only issue that he does not have enough experience in gold control work-a fact which is disputed by the counsel for the appellant. In the light of the policy being adopted by the Government, the question as to whether Ravindramohan has experience in gold trade or not would not arise for decision so long as the proposed partnership as a whole will have sufficient expertise in dealership in gold. The other partner to the proposed partnership firm is already a licensed gold dealer and hence he is presumed to have the necessary background.

In this view of the matter we allow the appeal and direct that the appellant, Ravindramohan, be allowed to be taken as a partner in the gold dealer's licence No. 15/78.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //