<?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 (8) TMI 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73267</link>
    <description>An undefined expression in delegated licensing rules must be construed in the context of the parent statute under which the rules are made. Applying that approach, a gold dealer manufacturing ornaments for other dealers could fall within the meaning of a wholesale dealer for renewal of a licence under Rule 3(ee) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. The dealer&#039;s manufacturing activity for other licensed dealers was accepted, and the alternative turnover condition was also met because dealings with persons other than licensed dealers were nil for sufficient reasons. Licence renewal was therefore upheld and the department&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (8) TMI 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73267</link>
      <description>An undefined expression in delegated licensing rules must be construed in the context of the parent statute under which the rules are made. Applying that approach, a gold dealer manufacturing ornaments for other dealers could fall within the meaning of a wholesale dealer for renewal of a licence under Rule 3(ee) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. The dealer&#039;s manufacturing activity for other licensed dealers was accepted, and the alternative turnover condition was also met because dealings with persons other than licensed dealers were nil for sufficient reasons. Licence renewal was therefore upheld and the department&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>