Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 449 (HP)

MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED v. PUSHAP RAJ

2005-11-28

A.K.GOEL, ONKAR CHAND THAKUR, PREM CHAUHAN

body2005
ORDER Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President: - This case has a chequered history. Complaint was filed before District Forum at Mandi. It was registered as complaint case No. 134/1994 and was dismissed on 5.8.1996. Substance of the dismissal order shows that it was found to be premature. When grievance of the respondent not redressed by the appellants, he again filed a complaint on 13.8.1999. It has been allowed on 19.4.2000 by the said forum in the following terms: In view of above discussion, complaint is allowed and respondent No. 1 ordered to refund the excise rebate of Rs. 15309 to complainant with interest at the rate of15% PA from the date of present complaint i.e. 13.8.1999 till payment and also do pay Rs. 2000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs. 2. In this background present appeal has been filed. It was barred by time, but delay was condoned by this Commission and there after appeal was entertained. An application dated 10.5.2003 was also filed by the appellant for transposition of M/s Modern Automobiles respondent No. 2, as an appellant. As per order dated 12.5.2003, it was ordered to be transposed as an appellant by this Commission. 3. In this background Sh. Serkek, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the complaint was barred by time and respondent No. 1 was not a consumer while claiming refund of Excise Rebate, as such the Forum at Mandi did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the same because vehicle was sold at Shimla as such on this ground also complaint was liable to be dismissed while allowing this appeal. All these pleas have been controverted by Sh. Dheeraj Bansal, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. Per him part of cause of action arose in favour of his client where in the event of amount having been remitted by the appellant in accordance with the provisions of law was to be received by his client and vehicle is registered at Mandi. He laid emphasis on the provisions of Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1988, as well as Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and urged that it was for the appellants inter se to have submitted the claim for Excise Rebate to the authorities under law. Qua the appellant his client was a consumer and there was deficiency in service on the part of the former. Qua the appellant his client was a consumer and there was deficiency in service on the part of the former. Another fact that needs to be noted here is that inter se appellants there is direct conflict of interests as is evident from trie record of the Forum below. 4. Appellant No. 1 on 15.9.1999 had informed the authorities of Central Excise at Gurgaon that post registration documents eligible for claiming rebate in Excise Duty had not been received from its dealer therefore, claim of refund had not been filed. This intimation was sent by appellant No. 1 vide No. MUL; SND; T06 dated 15.9.1999. 5. Whereas record of the Forum below shows that appellant No. 2 had placed on record, copies of fax messages addressed to appellant No. 1 which clearly suggest that claim for refund was filed long ago. These documents are pages 26 to 32 on the file of the Forum. 6. Letter dated 20.9.1999 from General Manager of the appellant No. 2 addressed to one Mr. S.S. Gupta, Manager (SND), of appellant No. 1 not only falsifies but also negatives stand of appellant No. 1 that claim was not filed with it. For ready reference contents of this letter are extracted herein below:- "No. MA/CHD/HO-15-B/99/2672 Dated: 20.9.1999. Shri S.S. Gupta, Manager (SND), Maruti Udyog Ltd. Palam Gurgapn Road, Gurgaon. Sub :- Taxi Consumer Cases. Dear Sir, This has reference to your E-Mail message No. ELJJ-2833/4221/20, dated 15.9.1999 on the above subject. You have enquired whether any documents have been forwarded by our Shimla outlet for claim of Taxi Excise rebate for Chasis No. 854223 in the name of Pushp Raj. In this connection, your kind attention is invited to our letter NO. MA/SIM/4129, dated 5.2.1996 addressed to Sh. Surinder Kumar, Senior Executive (Legal), wherein it was intimated to him that vide MUL Invoice No. 114346-VF, dated d6.11.1990, Maruti Udyog Ltd. Had sold one OMNI vehicle bearing Chasis No. 854223 as Taxi. Moreover, the case of Sh. Pushp Raj was submitted by Maruti Udyog Ltd. For clearance of excise rebate vide MUL Ledger Page 124 (copy of the said letter as well as the Ledger page is enclosed for your ready reference). In this way it is confirmed that the taxi rebate documents of Sh. Pushp Raj were duly forwarded to MUL and MUL had also forwarded his case for clearance. (Emphasis supplied). As Sh. In this way it is confirmed that the taxi rebate documents of Sh. Pushp Raj were duly forwarded to MUL and MUL had also forwarded his case for clearance. (Emphasis supplied). As Sh. Pushp Raj has filed a complaint with the District Forum, Mandi, you are requested to intimate the present status of his taxi rebate case immediately so that the reply is filed in the District Forum, Mandi, accordingly." 7. This clearly suggests that for claiming Excise Rebate in the case of respondent, it was submitted by appellant No. 2 to appellant No. 1 long ago. Faced with the contents of the letter dated 20.9.1999 (supra) Mr. Serkek was also not in a position to advance his plea that appellant No. 1 could not have lodged the Excise Rebate claim of the complainant with the Excise Authorities for want of providing necessary papers by the respondent to either of the appellants. What falls from this is, that the stand of appellant No. 1 that no claim was lodged as envisaged under the relevant law for claiming the Excise Rebate by the respondent is factually incorrect and in no case is supported from the record. Therefore, this plea urged on behalf of the appellant is without substance and merits rejection. At the risk of repetition we may also observe that it was appellant No. 1 as manufacturer who had to lodge the Excise Rebate claim with the authorities under the relevant provisions of the law. It could not have been lodged either by appellant No. 2 or by the respondent. 8. Submission of Mr. Serkek based on the decision of the National Commission, in the case of Assistant Commissioner Central Excise v. Rajesh Bhati and others. Vol. Ill (2004) CPJ 30, as well as of this Commission in State of H.P. v. Modem Automobiles Ltd., Vol. Ill (2004) CPJ 244 and of Uttranchal State Commission, in Taskeem Ahmed v. Kavisha Motors Pvt. Ltd. and others, Vol. IV (CPJ) 805, cannot be accepted. Because no relief is being claimed against the Central Excise Department by the complainant. As already noted under the relevant rules, copy where of has been filed has been placed on the appeal file as an Annexure-C by the appellants. IV (CPJ) 805, cannot be accepted. Because no relief is being claimed against the Central Excise Department by the complainant. As already noted under the relevant rules, copy where of has been filed has been placed on the appeal file as an Annexure-C by the appellants. Its perusal clearly indicates that it is the manufacturer who is to furnish record to the Central Excise Authorities, i.e. all the certificates from the officer concerned of the State Transport Authority with 3 months from the date to the effect that such saloon car has been registered for the use solely as a taxi. This vehicle was sold on invoice by appellant No. 1 of full rate on Excise duty on 6.11.1990 to appellant No. 2. Necessary documents as per letter of the respondent No. 2 were sent long ago on 5.12.1990 to appellant No. 1 vide Annexure A-2 (supra). Its perusal shows that at diary No. 786 dated 7.12.1990 its copy was received by appellant No. 2. What happened thereafter is not known. 9. Appellant did whatever he could not with a view to get his claim settled. A perusal on above extracted letter dated 20.11.1999 shows that both the appellants are now trying to defeat on technical grounds the legitimate claim of the respondent after a period of more than 15 years. Respondent is still languishing from one Forum to another. In view of the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the facts which are peculiar to this case, none of the decisions relied upon by Mr. Serkek are applicable to this case. 10. So far jurisdiction of this Forum at Mandi is concerned in the facts of this case and as already observed admittedly vehicle is registered there within the jurisdiction of the Forum at Mandi. Thus part of cause of action arose in favour of the respondent and against the appellant at Mandi. For taking this view reliance is being placed on the decision of this "Commission in the case of Narinder Kumar Sood v. Punjab Motors Kurali and others. Latest HLJ 2004 (HP 1378 : 2005(1) Cur. L.J. (HP.) 529, as well as on an earlier decision also of this Commission in the case Pradeep Kumar Khurana v. M/s. Wheels World, 1997(1) CPC 312. Nothing to the contrary has been brought to our notice to take a different view. 11. No other point is urged. 12. Latest HLJ 2004 (HP 1378 : 2005(1) Cur. L.J. (HP.) 529, as well as on an earlier decision also of this Commission in the case Pradeep Kumar Khurana v. M/s. Wheels World, 1997(1) CPC 312. Nothing to the contrary has been brought to our notice to take a different view. 11. No other point is urged. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with cost quantified at Rs. 2500/- since main appeal has been dismissed, All interim orders passed from time to time shall stands vacated forthwith.