Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise vs RAJESH BHATTI

THE complainant Rajesh Bhatti now respondent purchased a Maruti car from M/s. Modern Automobiles, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, respondent No. 4 on 7.2.1994 to be used as a taxi for which he was entitled to Excise Duty rebate but he failed to get that entitled rebate from the Central Excise, Gurgaon-appellant. THE District Forum-II allowed the complaint and directed the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Gurgaon-respondent No. 4 to make the necessary refund to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 1.2.1996 till payment with costs Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved against this order, the present appeal has been attempted.

BRIEFLY the complainant purchased one Maruti Van from M/s. Modern Automobiles, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-respondent No. 4 being the dealer of M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. respondent No. 2 manufacturer of the car. Since the vehicle was not to be used as taxi the complainant demanded refund of Excise Duty. The complainant now respondent No. 1 furnished the necessary documents to M/s. Modern Automobiles Ltd., respondent No. 4 on 17.2.1994 for this purpose. However, it was not paid to the complainant by way of refund. Originally the complaint was brought against respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 but as soon as complainant became aware that refund was to be made by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Gurgaon, respondent No. 4 was also impleaded vide order dated 23.10.1997. The respondent No. 4 now appellant failed to respond to the District Forum''s notice, hence, it was adjudged ex parte on 3rd March, 1998.

The appellant has raised a preliminary objection that the complainant now respondent No. 1 is not a consumer because he purchased vehicle for commercial purpose under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Actually this vehicle has been purchased by the complainant now respondent No. 1 for earning his livelihood and to be used as a taxi. Hence, this objection has no force. He was neither running a transport business nor carrying out any big commercial use from this vehicle except for earning his livelihood. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 during the course of arguments have not repudiated the complainant''s plea for refund because they say the documents were processed and forwarded to the respondent No. 4 now appellant but appellant rejected it on frivolous grounds. It was contended that as soon as the vehicle is rolled out from the manufacturer to the distributor, excise duty is paid immediately. The complainant now respondent No. 1 furnished all the documents required for claiming the refund within 3 months stipulated time to the distributor who had forwarded these documents to the appellant for refunding the Excise Duty. Our attention has also been drawn to Ganesh Dutt Sharma v. Maruti Udyog Limited, Gurgaon, I (1997) CPJ 431=1997 (1) CON.LT 628, and Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors., I (1998) CPJ 620=1998 (2) CPR 583, whereby in both the cases the complainant requested for refund of the Excise Duty and it was allowed against Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise, Gurgaon.

THE complainant brought to our notice here that the sum of Rs. 6,984/- has in fact been paid to him vide cheque No. 367042 dated 6.8.1999 drawn on State Bank of Travancore, however, interest @ 12% p.a. and costs Rs. 1,000/- have not been paid to him so far. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties this Commission affirms the order of the District Forum-II regarding payment of interest and costs and no interference is called for. THE appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.