Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 86 (CHH)

JHHUMUKLAL SAHU v. CENTRAL AUTOMOBILES

2004-04-26

R.S.AWASTHI, V.K.AGRAWAL, VEENA MISRA

body2004
ORDER V.K. Agrawal, 1. This appeal is directed against the order dtd. 12-2-04 in complaint no. 51/2000 by Distt. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the 'Distt. Forum' for short) dismissing the complaint of the complainant/ appellant. 2. Undisputedly the complainant/appellant purchased a jeep on 113-99 from the dealer/respondent no. 1. The particulars of the said jeep are given in para 3 of the complaint. It is also not in dispute that the respondent nos. 2 & 3 are the manufacturers of the said vehicle. 3. According to the averment in the complaint and affidavit of the complainant the said jeep was purchased by the complainant/appellant for being used as taxi for earning his livelihood. He, therefore claimed rebate in excise duty as per the rules for purchase and use of a vehicle as taxi. Since the complainant did not succeed in his efforts in obtaining the rebate as above, he filed the complaint praying that the rebate amount of Rs. 32,500/- be directed to be paid to the complainant. 4. The complaint was resisted by the respondent. According to them, the complainant was not entitled to rebate as above. The respondents no. 2 & 3 averred that since the claim was made beyond the period of 3 months, therefore, the complainant could not get rebate as provided under the Central Excise and Salt Act. 5. The learned Distt. Forum held that the complainant was not entitled to recover the rebate as he submitted his claim after a period of 3 months. It was also held that there is no deficiency in service by the respondents in not refunding the amount of rebate in excise duty. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant had claimed rebate, within time as would be clear from the letter of dealer respondent no. 1. It was submitted that after .the purchase of vehicle on 11-3-99, the complainant got it registered with R. T.O. on 16-3-99 and submitted the documents with the dealer on 17-3-99 claiming rebate, without any delay. It was submitted that the complainant was entitled to recover the amount of rebate in excise duty. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the complainant did not prefer his claim within the prescribed time of 3 months from the date of release of vehicle by the manufacturer from his workshop. It was submitted that the complainant was entitled to recover the amount of rebate in excise duty. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the complainant did not prefer his claim within the prescribed time of 3 months from the date of release of vehicle by the manufacturer from his workshop. Therefore, the claim was disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise by order dt. 3-1-2000. A copy of the order of the said authority in 1: No. V Misc. (18) 21/99/14302 dt. 3-6-2000 Order No. 239/AC/Malad/99 dtd. 25-11-99 was filed in support of the submission as above. 8. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the complainant/appellant is entitled to recover the amount of rebate in excise duty? and if so, from whom? 9. As noticed above the complainant undisputedly purchased the vehicle on 11-3-99 and got it registered with R.T.O. on 16-3-99 and claim was filed by him with the dealer on 17-3-99. Thus the claim was submitted by him without any delay i.e. within 6 days after the purchase of the vehicle. The aforementioned order dtd. 25-11-99 of the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Malad indicates that claim of the appellant was rejected for refund as the taxi was registered after the period of 3 months after its removal from the factory. 10. It may be noticed that the letter dtd. 31-1-2000 issued by the respondents no. 2 & 3 discloses that the said vehicle was cleared from the factory on 31-11-98. The vehicle was sold to the appellant on 11-3-99. The period of 3 months from the date of its removal from the factory had then already expired. The complainant, therefore, could in no case prefer claim with in 3 months of the removal of taxi from the factory to get the rebate 10 excise duty. The complainant/appellant could not be expected to know the date of removal of the vehicle from the factory. It was obviously within the knowledge of the respondent no. 1 dealer, as to when the said vehicle was removed from the factory. It was his obligation to sell a vehicle to the complainant, which was removed from the factory within 3 months, from the dale of sale. He however, failed to do so. The omission as above by respondent no. 1 dealer has thus deprived the complainant/appellant from getting the rebate from the Excise Deptt. It was his obligation to sell a vehicle to the complainant, which was removed from the factory within 3 months, from the dale of sale. He however, failed to do so. The omission as above by respondent no. 1 dealer has thus deprived the complainant/appellant from getting the rebate from the Excise Deptt. The responsibility of the loss as above was clearly of the dealer respondent no. 1 as has been discussed above lie is liable to make good the loss as above. However, it does not appear that the respondent nos. 2 & 3 the manufacturers, are in any way responsible for the default of delayed submission of claim before the Excise Commissioner, claiming rebate of excise duty. Therefore, respondent No.2 & 3 cannot be held liable for the loss caused to the complainant. 11. In Priyalata Panda Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Another1 wherein the dealer failed to send documents to concerned department within the time limit of 3 months after the purchase of vehicle, the State Commission of Orissa held that the dealer committed deficiency in service. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances the appeal stands dismissed as against respondents 2 & 3. However, so far as respondent no. 1 is concerned the appeal is allowed, and the respondent no. 1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 32,500/- (Thirty two thousand five hundred) being rebate of excise duty to the complainant/appellant with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of complaint till payment. The respondent No.1 shall also pay cost of this appeal to the appellant which is quantified at Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only. Appeal Allowed.