https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74160 Rule 2(b) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 requires experience in dealing with or making, manufacturing, repairing, preparing or polishing ornaments, but it does not prescribe a fixed qualifying period or other restrictive standard. On that basis, the experience requirement was treated as assessable on the evidence available rather than as a rigid mandatory bar. The applicant's goldsmith certificate, affidavit stating eight years' employment with a licensed gold dealer, and the absence of contrary material supported satisfaction of the requirement. The licensing authority was not justified in rejecting the claim without evidence to disprove it, and the direction to grant the gold dealers licence was sustained. en-us Tue, 24 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74160 Rule 2(b) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 requires experience in dealing with or making, manufacturing, repairing, preparing or polishing ornaments, but it does not prescribe a fixed qualifying period or other restrictive standard. On that basis, the experience requirement was treated as assessable on the evidence available rather than as a rigid mandatory bar. The applicant's goldsmith certificate, affidavit stating eight years' employment with a licensed gold dealer, and the absence of contrary material supported satisfaction of the requirement. The licensing authority was not justified in rejecting the claim without evidence to disprove it, and the direction to grant the gold dealers licence was sustained. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 24 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74160