PANCHWATI MOTORS vs S.K.GARG

PRINCIPLES of law have been discussed in the case of Assistant Commissioner Central Excise v. Rajesh Bhatti and Others, Revision Peition No. 1 of 2000, which are applicable in the present case.

THESE two separate revision petitions against the same order of the State Commission. One petition is by the authorised dealer of Maruti Udyog Ltd. and other by the manufacturer itself. In this case District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of either the dealer or the manufacturer of the vehicle which was later converted into an ambulance. State Commission on appeal filed by the complainant, however, reversed the order of the District Forum and directed refund of the excess duty of excise of Rs. 26,606/- to the complainant under the exemption notification along with interest @ 18% from the date of application by the complainant to the opposite parties for refund till payment. Complainant was also held entitled cost of Rs. 1,000/-. State Commission left it to the opposite parties to claim refund of duty of excise from the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excixe under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Under the relevant notification, when a vehicle after its purchase registered as ambulance, it is entitled to certain exemption from the duty of excise.

State Commission rejected the contention of the Maruti Udyog Ltd. with reference to a decision of the Haryana State Commission in Ganesh Dutt Sharma v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., Revision Petition No. 571/97 before this Commision, that direction be issued to Central Excise Department for refund of the amount of excise duty with interest. Punjab State Commision in a similar matter did not agree with the order of the Haryana State Commission and in our view rightly that no such direction could be issued to the Assistant Commissinoer of Central Excise. However, in this case Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise was not a party in the complaint. Once the complainant (respondent No. 1 in Revision Petition No. 586/2000, had submitted all the papers to the dealer (M/s. Panchwati Motors-respondent No. 2 in Revision Petition No. 586/2000), it was for the Maruti Udyog Ltd., manufacturer (petitioner in Revision Petition No. 586) to send the papers to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act. It was submitted before us that complainant had not submitted all the papers and therefore, Maruti Udyog Ltd. could not forward the same to the Assistant Commissioner of Excise. We do not think it was for the Maruti Udyog Ltd. to first decide on the validity of the papers and only when it is satisfied to forward the same to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. There is period of limitation within which an application has to be filed before the Assistant Commissioner of Excise for refund of such duty. It would be for the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise to call for further papers if the application was in any way defective. If was submitted before us by Mr. Satish Agarwala, learned Counsel for the Central Excise Department who appeared in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise v. Rajesh Bhatti and Others,Revision Petition No. 1of 2000, that there was no limitation as far as Central Excise Officer is concerned for him to decide any application seeking refund of the excise duty. Mr. Agarwala was accompanied by Mr. Rajesh Sanan, Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon who said that before rejecting any application which is defective an opportunity is given to the applicant to furnish all the relevant documents. Since duty is cast on the manufacturer to seek refund of duty of excise any failure on its part would be certainly deficiency in service. Here there is certainly deficiency in service on the part of the Maruti Udyog Ltd. and the complainant is entitled to have the amount of excise duty to which he is entitled under the notification for being recompensed. Accordingly, we will allow the Revision Petition No. 145/2000 filed by the authorised dealer except that interest shall be payable @ 12% per annum and dismiss the Revision Petition No. 586/2000 that of the Maruti Udyog Ltd. with cost amounting to Rs. 2,000/- payable to the complainant. Ordered accordingly.