Hindustan Motors Limited vs RAM JAG YADAV

IN this appeal filed against order dated 17.10.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 867 of 1996, the contentions on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellant are : (1) The complaint is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. (2) The vehicle in non-question was not registered as a taxi and as such the claim for refund of the amount of Rs. 17,000/- as excise duty is not payable to the respondent/complainant.

SO far as the no-maintainability of the complaint is concerned, it may be mentioned that the remedy available to the complainant/consumer under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act) is in addition and not in derogation to any other law for the time being in force. Apart from it, the respondent/complainant paid to the manufacturer/appellant, the excise duty for purchasing the taxi and the excise duty payable on taxi is, undisputedly, refundable by the Central Excise Department. It is not disputed that the respondent/complainant had paid the excise duty on the vehicle purchased as taxi. The appellant i.e. the manufacturer had undertook to refund the amount of excise duty already paid by the complainant/respondent and as such the complainant/respondent applied to the appellant for the refund of the excise duty. The respondent/complainant is not directly concerned with the Department of Central Excise and the competent authority thereunder was Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (Govt. of India). The respondent/complainant had not deposited the excise duty for the said vehicle directly with the Central Excise Department, as a matter of fact, the manufacturer at the time of rolling out the vehicle in question had paid the excise duty to the Excise Department and it was the manufacturer who had to refund the Excise duty to the respondent/complainant. In this view of the matter, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainant should have approached the said authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise for the refund of the excise duty has no merit and the complaint has rightly been entertained and adjudicated by the District Forum.

So far as the second and the last submission regarding the vehicle purchased by the respondent being not registered as a taxi and not used as such is concerned, it is not a matter which can be decided in this complaint case and at the behest of the appellant who were impleaded as O.Ps. The complaint was filed for a specific relief of the refund of the excise duty paid by the complainant to the manufacturer for the purchase of the said vehicle used as taxi. It is a question of fact as to whether the vehicle was registered as a taxi and used as such or not. If the appellant has any grievance in this regard then the appellant have the liberty to approach an appropriate Forum for seeking redressal of their grievance in this regard and in that case, the appellant will have to specifically lead evidence to prove the averments in such a petition. In addition to the aforesaid two points, Mr. P.K. Kukreja, Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the respondent/complainant had not sent all the complete papers regarding the refund of the excise duty and, therefore, the matter could not be taken up by the appellant with the Excise Department for the refund of the excise duty. Once we find that the vehicle was booked as a taxi and purchased as a taxi, the excise duty became refundable after the vehicle had been purchased and delivered to the respondent/complainant and it could not have any direct nexus regarding the claim of the amount by the appellant from the Excise Department. The District Forum has in its well reasoned order rightly repelled the contentions of the appellant and rightly allowed the complaint. We find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed with costs which we quantify at Rs. 300/-. Copies of this judgment be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.