The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fulfilling the necessary import requirements, including importing machinery in the correct name, to avail MODVAT benefits and the jurisdiction of Consumer Courts to decide on commercial transactions.

ORDER

Mr. Justice J.M. Malik, Presiding Member -In this case, the parties have locked horns over the question, "Whether, the complainant, Sh. Puranchand Ramsharan Tank, could not get the benefit of MODVAT due to the negligence of Cosmos Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd., the OP/Petitioner "

2. The MODVAT Scheme, principally, is based on system of granting credit in excise duty paid on inputs under MODVAT. The manufacturer has to pay as per normal procedure, on the basis of "assessable value" (which is mainly based on selling price). However, he gets credit in excise duty, on inputs and credit is to be available only the basis of specific documents as proof of payment of duty, on inputs. Further, MODVAT is available on inputs, only if the process amounts to manufacture, otherwise MODVAT is not available. MODVAT Credit is essential in the nature of beneficial legislation. As per custom rules, importer has to give declaration to the Customs Department, at the time of machine clearance and showing all details, exercise, particulars, etc., in order to get necessary stamping of the bill of entry to avail MODVAT credit. If the necessary information is not submitted to the Customs Department, before clearance of machine and stamping of bill, bill of entry is made before the goods are taken out of the Customs Department.

3. The facts of this case are as follows: The complainant is the owner of Small Scale Industries Unit located at Waluj, Aurangabad. He had placed an order for supply of Feeler CNC Vertical Machining Centre Model FV 600 SE manufactured by M/s. Fair Front ENT Company Ltd., Taiwan. The respondent company had agreed to supply the machine at factory site of the complainant. Cost of the machine was inclusive of the central sales tax, the central excise duty, the octroi charges and the freight charges, coupled with the transit insurance, handling and packing charges, etc. The grouse of the complainant is that the respondent imported the machine in their own name, instead of the complainant's name. Since the machine was not imported in the name of the complainant, Customs authorities refused to issue Certificate, certifying that customs duty, has been paid by the complainant for importing the machine.

4. Thus, the complainant could not get the benefit of proportionate refund in the form of adjustment for payment of the Central Excise Duty on the goods manufactured by them. Had the machinery been imported directly in the name of the complainant, then Customs authorities would have been in a position to get certificate from Central Excise Department in the name of the complainant and the complainant would have been entitled to get the benefit of MODVAT. It is again stated that the OP did not send the requisite form.

5. However, the company/OP contended that it had asked the complainant to fill-in the required information for submitting the same to the concerned authorities, as contemplated under law. They contended that form was sent on 20.11.1999. However, they did not get any response from the complainant till February, 2000. The form, duly filled-in, was to be sent by the complainant to the company/OP and the company/OP, in turn, was to forward it to the concerned authorities. On the other hand, the complainant had denied having received any such form.

6. Ultimately, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum, with the following prayers:

"(a) to allow the complaint;

(b) to direct the respondent company to pay an amount of Rs. 3,12,000 receivable by the complainant towards MODVAT benefit, along with the interest at the rate of 23% per annum, from 12.2.2000, till its realization;

(c) to award cost of Rs. 5,000 to the complainant;

(d) to pass any other equitable relief."

7. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. It could not find any unfair trade practice on the part of OP, as alleged by the complainant.

8. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed appeal before the State Commission. The State Commiss