<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1987 (3) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72850</link>
    <description>For gold dealer licensing, demand had to be assessed strictly on the turnover of existing licensed dealers during the statutorily prescribed three-year period before the application, and later figures could not be used. Turnover under the rules covered only ornaments and articles, so sales of standard gold bars, treated separately as primary gold, were excluded. Where the earlier licence had long lapsed and no further challenge had been pursued, a later request was a fresh application, not a renewal, so past business history or alleged illness of the proprietor could not alter the position. The refusal of the licence was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111129" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (3) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72850</link>
      <description>For gold dealer licensing, demand had to be assessed strictly on the turnover of existing licensed dealers during the statutorily prescribed three-year period before the application, and later figures could not be used. Turnover under the rules covered only ornaments and articles, so sales of standard gold bars, treated separately as primary gold, were excluded. Where the earlier licence had long lapsed and no further challenge had been pursued, a later request was a fresh application, not a renewal, so past business history or alleged illness of the proprietor could not alter the position. The refusal of the licence was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>