Skip to content


Shri G. Ramdoss Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Decided On
Reported in(1987)(31)ELT91Tri(Chennai)
AppellantShri G. Ramdoss
RespondentCollector of Central Excise
Excerpt:
.....to the high court under section 82b of the gold (control) act, 1968. 1. whether rule 2(ee) of the gold control (licensing of dealers) rules, 1969 applies to the applicant. 2. whether rule 2(ee) of the gold control (licensing of dealers) rules, 1969, is intra-vires of the provisions of the gold (control) act, 1968 and is reasonable.2. in so far as the second question is concerned, the advocate for the applicant accepts that it is not a matter for reference by the tribunal; if the issue is at all to be agitated, the forum will have to be a different one.3. in so far as the first question is concerned the advocate for the applicant refers to the following observations of the tribunal in the said order : "the fact of detention has to be accepted and has been rightly taken into account by.....
Judgment:
1. Shri G. Ramdoss, Coimbatore, by an application dated 16-8-1983 requires the Tribunal to refer the following questions, said to be of law, arising from our order No. GC(MAS) 29/83 dated 27-4-83 to the High Court under Section 82B of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

1. Whether Rule 2(ee) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 applies to the applicant.

2. Whether Rule 2(ee) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969, is intra-vires of the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and is reasonable.

2. In so far as the second question is concerned, the Advocate for the applicant accepts that it is not a matter for reference by the Tribunal; if the issue is at all to be agitated, the forum will have to be a different one.

3. In so far as the first question is concerned the Advocate for the applicant refers to the following observations of the Tribunal in the said order : "The fact of detention has to be accepted and has been rightly taken into account by the Deputy Collector." He suggests that the detention has to be a valid one; in that sense, whether there was a valid detention and hence the facts leading to the detention, would rightly be a matter for consideration by this Tribunal.

4. Rule 2(ee) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 provides that in considering an application for the issue of a licence, whether the applicant has been detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 has to be kept in view. Whether there was an effective detention or not, is a question of fact and this has been rightly taken into account by the Deputy Collector and noted by us in our order dated 27-8-83. The observation relates to our taking note of a fact, viz. the existence of a detention. In this view of the matter, we consider that no point of law is involved for reference to the High Court.

Accordingly we reject the request for reference to the High Court.


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