G SUBRAMANIAN Vs. COLLECTOR OF C EX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal directed against the order dated 11-11-87 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, by which he had upheld the order of the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Trichy, dated 7-8-87 rejecting the renewal application of the Gold Dealer's Licence under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 of the appellant herein, who are licensed Gold Dealers at Pattukkottai.

(2.) The appellants applied for renewal of their licence on 1-11-85. The Depart ment found that the appellant G. Subramanian had been involved in an offence case during 1985, which was adjudicated by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise,

(3.) SHRI C. Natarajan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the non-renewal of the licence for past offence was not justified in this case, because the lower authorities have omitted to consider the nature and gravity of the offence. The learned counsel pointed out that the offence in which the appellant was involved was not a case of possession of any contraband primary gold or foreign gold. The gold seized and confiscated were only gold ornaments. The appellant was a traditional goldsmith and he does not know any other profession. He has a clean past record. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Western Regional Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay v. Manoharlal Ghanshyamdass Jewellers, 1988 (12) E.T.R. 308, wherein the Tribunal had found that refusal to renew licence should be confined to serious and persistent contravention. In this case the ap pellant had not been involved in any previous offence other than the one for which he had been penalised. Nature of the offence also was not such as to make the appellant deserving of the harsh punishment of non-renewal of his licence, which vitally affects his livelihood, because the appellant knows no other profession. The learned counsel also mentioned that the Department itself had not any objection for renewal of licences of other dealers, who were also involved in previous offences involving gold of about the same quantity as the appellant herein. The learned counsel also submitted that the Department had launched a prosecution in the same case against the appellant, which has been decided in favour of the appellant and that this should also be taken as an in dicator about the nature and gravity of the offence and in the circumstances, the coun sel submitted, that the lower authority has to necessarily go into the gravity and nature of the offence, which had not been done in this case, and the non-renewal of the licence upon the fact that the appeal by the appellant against the penalty and fine had been taken up upto the Tribunal stage and the Tribunal had upheld the penalty, though giving relief in the quantum thereof on the appellant pleading guilty of the charges against him, is not justified. However, in the circumstances explained above the learned counsel submitted that the appellant should be given a chance to show that the nature and gravity of the of fence involved was not such as to deserve the harsh punishment of being deprived of the traditional livelihood. The learned counsel also furnished a list of dealers whose licen ces have been renewed despite previous offences of the same magnitude.