The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to submit requisite papers for refund of excise duty within the prescribed period absolves the dealer and manufacturer from liability for the refund.

Irshad Hussain, President:-

Both these appeals arise out of one and the same order dated 14.05.2008 passed by the District Forum, Nainital, partly allowing consumer complaint No. 31 of 2007. By the order impugned, author­ised dealer - M/s Mega Motors as well as the manufacturer of the vehicle - Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., op­posite party Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, were jointly and severally held liable to refund excise duty of Rs. 68,941.21/- to the com­plainant together with interest @9% p.a. and also to pay litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/-. Opposite party No. 3 - Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise was, how­ever, not saddled with any liability in that regard. Aggrieved by the order impugned, both the authorised dealer and the manu­facturer of the vehicle filed these appeals and assailed the propriety and legality of the order impugned.

2. The delay in filing the appeals is hereby condoned and the same are admit­ted for decision on merit.

3. None appeared on behalf of Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise. We have heard the learned counsel for the dealer, manufacturer and the complainant and considered their submissions in the light of the facts, circumstances and legal aspects of the case. The short question which arise for consideration in these appeals is whether or not the complainant had sub­mitted the requisite papers for refund of excise duty within the time prescribed by the relevant Notification and the dealer and also the manufacturer of the vehicle, have not sent the papers for refund of the excise duty to the Excise Commissioner, as a re­sult of which, the excise duty could not be refunded to the complainant by the depart­ment concerned and in that event, the dealer and the manufacturer were liable to pay the amount of the excise duty to the complainant.

4. At the outset, it need to be stated that by virtue of a relevant Notification under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, exemption from payment of excise duty was allowed in case the vehicle had been registered for use solely as a taxi or ambulance and the excise duty paid was liable to be refunded to the owner ac­cording to the procedure prescribed, sub­ject to the claim for refund having been made within the time prescribed by the No­tification. Complainant came up with the allegation that he had purchased a new Tata Indica car on 22.11.2002 for taxi purpose and submitted requisite papers with the dealer - appellant M/s Mega Mo­tors on 09.01.2003, seeking refund of the excise duty. The claim was contested by the appellants and they claimed that the complainant's papers for refund of excise duty were received on 22.08.2003 by the dealer, who in turn, sent the papers to the manufacturer and finally the papers were sent to the Excise Commissioner concerned by the manufacturer for doing the needful and since the requisite papers were not sub­mitted within the prescribed period from the date of clearance of the subject motor vehicle from the factory of the manufac­turer, the appellants have not made any deficiency in service to the complainant. According to them, the claim for refund of excise duty having not been accepted by the excise department, the appellants were not at all responsible or liable for the same to any extent.

5. The District Forum, placing reliance on the averment of the affidavit dated 24.08.2007 of the complainant and xerox copy of the so-called receipt of refund of excise duty, allegedly submitted to the dealer on 09.01.2003, accepted the com­plainant's claim that the compliance of the relevant provision for refund of the excise duty by submission of the requisite papers within the prescribed period of 60 days had been made by the complainant and that the dealer had not forwarded the papers within time, resulting which, the Excise Commissioner did not refund the excise duty to the complainant. In accepting the complainant's claim, the District Forum rejected the contention of both the appel­lants that the complainant submitt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document