<?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>1989 (2) TMI 274 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74898</link>
    <description>Renewal of a gold dealer&#039;s licence could be refused where the applicant failed to commence business and showed no turnover, because renewal under Rule 3(ee) depended on compliance with the prescribed conditions and satisfaction that the low turnover was justified. The applicant had obtained the licence before expiry but had not started trading at all, and the explanation for non-commencement was found vague, internally inconsistent and inadequate. On those facts, the statutory requirement of sufficient reasons for the absence of turnover was not met, so the rejection of renewal was justified and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:01:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113177" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (2) TMI 274 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74898</link>
      <description>Renewal of a gold dealer&#039;s licence could be refused where the applicant failed to commence business and showed no turnover, because renewal under Rule 3(ee) depended on compliance with the prescribed conditions and satisfaction that the low turnover was justified. The applicant had obtained the licence before expiry but had not started trading at all, and the explanation for non-commencement was found vague, internally inconsistent and inadequate. On those facts, the statutory requirement of sufficient reasons for the absence of turnover was not met, so the rejection of renewal was justified and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74898</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>