<?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>1983 (3) TMI 276 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166063</link>
    <description>A dealer&#039;s licence under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 could be granted only if the Administrator, after enquiry, was satisfied having regard to the prescribed matters in Rule 2 of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. Previous penalisation under Rule 2(e) could be a relevant factor, but it did not by itself justify refusal or show that other Rule 2 criteria were ignored. A refusal order had to disclose on its face that the relevant licensing factors were considered and weighed. The refusal was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration because the order did not show due consideration of the statutory criteria.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2014 18:32:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363655" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (3) TMI 276 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166063</link>
      <description>A dealer&#039;s licence under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 could be granted only if the Administrator, after enquiry, was satisfied having regard to the prescribed matters in Rule 2 of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. Previous penalisation under Rule 2(e) could be a relevant factor, but it did not by itself justify refusal or show that other Rule 2 criteria were ignored. A refusal order had to disclose on its face that the relevant licensing factors were considered and weighed. The refusal was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration because the order did not show due consideration of the statutory criteria.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166063</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>