GANESH DUTT SHARMA Vs. MARUTI UDYOG LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two appeals No.60 of 1996 and 125 of 1996 filed by Ganesh Dutt Sharma V/s. Maruti Udyog Limited and Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise and Custom V/s. 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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 and 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 and 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.