https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41846 Rule 140 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was construed as giving the Collector wide discretion, when licensing a private bonded warehouse, to insist on a bond with surety or sufficient security on conditions he approves. On that basis, the requirement that the applicant be solvent and produce a solvency certificate was held within the rule-making power. The Court also held that the condition was not an unreasonable restriction on Article 19(1)(g), because it did not mandate immovable property and allowed the officer to assess solvency and financial standing case by case. The solvency condition was therefore upheld. en-us Thu, 20 Jun 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:03:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41846 Rule 140 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was construed as giving the Collector wide discretion, when licensing a private bonded warehouse, to insist on a bond with surety or sufficient security on conditions he approves. On that basis, the requirement that the applicant be solvent and produce a solvency certificate was held within the rule-making power. The Court also held that the condition was not an unreasonable restriction on Article 19(1)(g), because it did not mandate immovable property and allowed the officer to assess solvency and financial standing case by case. The solvency condition was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 Jun 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41846