Delay of 4 days in preferring revision petition in view of submissions made is condoned. Though District Forum unsuited respondent No. 1 for alleged failure of petitioner and respondent No. 2 to either permit rebate or refund the excise duty collected from him on a Maruti Van purchased from them meant for physically challenged persons, State Commission, on most untenable grounds and contrary to well recognized canons of legal jurisprudence, saddled petitioner and respondent No. 2 making them jointly and severally liable to refund excise duty collected from respondent No. 1 along with interest @ 9% p.a. along with litigation cost of Rs. 7,000/-. Succinctly put the facts are that on advice solicited from respondent No. 2 Dealer, about refund of excise duty on purhase of a Maruti Van meant for handicapped persons, respondent No. 1 purchased the vehicle in question on payment of requisite consideration money. However, as despite long persuasion, respondent failed to get refund of excise duty, a consumer complaint was instituted seeking refund of excise duty paid. Complaint was resisted by petitioner and respondent No. 2 holding that no rebate was permissible under the law on purchase of a Maruti Van which was in fact not meant for physically challenged persons. Complaint was also resisted on premises that excise duty was a tax which is paid by petitioner on each vehicle sold, and tax in question is not to be retained by petitioner or respondent No. 2. State Commission notwithstanding any evidence or document having been put on record by respondent No. 1 in support of his eligibility to claim refund of excise duty, saddled petitioner and respondent No. 2 for refund of excise duty paid by respondent No. 1. Observations made by State Commission make an interesting reading as notwithstanding such evidence put on record, State Commission held that conclusively such rules exist. This is not only a matter of interest for us but State Commission contrary to well recognized legal jurisprudence about the person claiming relief to put clinching evidence in support of its claim, conversely shifted onus on petitioner and respondent No. 2 to prove them that such rules do not exist. Least said is better about the observations made by State Commission which appear to be very bitter in taste to us. Contentions raised before fora below and also reiterated before us on behalf of petitioner was that though no such rule exists for refund of excise duty collected from customer along with cost of vehicle, even if it be there, the refund is sought to be made from Excise Department which was not arrayed as party in the proceeding. Having considered the short question which fell for consideration before fora below, we are of the considered view that finding recorded by State Commission was not sustainable and we accordingly, while setting aside the aforesaid finding, restore that of District Forum dismissing the complaint. However, there would no order as to cost.