GANESH DUTT SHARMA vs Maruti Udyog Ltd.

THIS order shall dispose of two appeals No. 60 of 1996 and 125 of 1996 filed by Ganesh Dutt Sharma v. Maruti Udyog Limited and Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise & Custom v. Ganesh Dutt Sharma and Others, respectively, as both the appeals arise out of the same order dated 22nd December, 1995 passed by learned District Forum, Gurgaon whereby complaint of Ganesh Dutt Sharma, for the refund of Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 15,309/- being the taxi refund on the Maruti Van purchased by the complainant, has been allowed.

ACCORDING to the complainant, he purchased Maruti Van No. HP-02-1067 from M/s. Modern Automobiles, Chandigarh dealer of M/s. Maruti Udyog, Ltd., Gurgaon vide delivery letter dated 10th November, 1990. Though a Bank draft of the amount of Rs. 1,07,395/- was given by the complainant, yet an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- was demanded from the complainant, but after adjusting the interest, only a sum of Rs. 5545/- was paid on 16th November, 1990. Since the van had been purchased to be used as a taxi, according to the complainant, he was entitled to a rebate of 5%, so he claimed for the refund of Rs. 15309-04 paise being the excise duty of 5%. However, when the complainant did not receive refund, he approached District Forum, Gurgaon on 15th March, 1995 in their replies, the respondents took various pleas to contest the complaint including the plea of limitation etc. But the learned District Forum finding merit in the complaint found as a fact that once it was proved on record that the complainant had got the vehicle registered as a taxi he was entitled to the refund of the excise duty and thus repelled the plea of the Central Excise Department of the Union of India. As a consequence thereof. Central Excise Department-opposite party No. 3 was directed to refund the amount of Rs. 15,309/- to the complainant. In the appeal filed by the Central Excise Department it has been vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that according to the provisions of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to determine the validity or otherwise of the duty payable by the complainant nor could any refund be ordered under the Consumer Protection Act. In other words, according to the learned Counsel, the impugned order is in derogation of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944, hence illegal. It is further contended that in any case, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, hence no refund could be ordered to them; meaning thereby that if at all some amount had to be refunded that was to be done by respondent No. 2 i.e., the dealer. So far as the appeal filed by the complainant is concerned, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant-Ganesh Dutt Sharma, that in addition to the refund of the excise duty, compensation should also have been awarded to the complainant for the expense and mental agony suffered by him in pursuing the litigation.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the considered view that Appeal No. 125 of 1996 filed by the Central Excise Department has no force and the same has to be dismissed, as the rebate of excise duty has to be granted by the Central Excise Department as the vehicle had been registered as a taxi for the public use, which is strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions contained in the Central Excise Act as well as their policy decisions. The mere fact that at the time of charging the price of the vehicle from the complainant, local dealer calculated the Central Excise Duty also and passed on to their main dealer, who onward deposited the duty with the Central Excise Department, cannot confer any immunity on the Central Excise Department or provide them a handle for not refunding the excise duty by way of rebate to the complainant, as ultimately the rebate to be given by the Central Excise Department and not by the initial dealer .of the vehicle. If the local or the principal dealer had refunded the amount to the complainant equivalent to the rebate of the Central Excise Duty, they were also fully entitled in law to have the same refunded or reimbursed from the Central Excise Department. In these circumstances, the direction issued by the learned District Forum against the Central Excise Department, to refund the amount is wholly in accordance with law, hence there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Central Excise Department and the same is dismissed.

SO far as the appeal filed by the complainant is concerned, no material whatsoever has been produced by the complainant with regard to any expense incurred by him or as to how he has quantified the amount of Rs. 50,000/- claimed by him as "compensation towards mental and physical harassment and inconvenience amounting to Rs 50,000/-." However, the fact stands that he had paid a sum of Rs. 15,309.04 paise on 30th December, 1990 to which he was entitled to a refund immediately thereafter. Since instead of refunding the amount on the receipt of application dated 30th December, 1990 alongwith necessary documents like registration certificate and photo etc, the Central Excise Department chose to contest the complaint, the complainant is certainly entitled to the interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 15309/- from the date of the refund application i.e.,30th December, 1990. Thus, the appeal filed by the complainant is partly allowed and we direct the Central Excise Department to pay the amount of Rs. 15309/- alongwith 18% thereon w.e.f. 30th December, 1990. This shall be done within a period of two months. The complainant shall also be entitled to the costs amounting to Rs. 1000/-. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. F.A. No. 60/1996 Partly allowed with costs. F.A. No. 125/96 dismissed.