HINDUSTAN MOT Vs. RAM JAG YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) So far as the no-maintainability of the complaint is concerned, it may be mentioned that the remedy available to the complainant/consumer under Sec.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.

(3.) 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.