ORAL
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
Appeal No. 50 of 2004
Maruti Udyog Limited, 11th Floor, Jeevan Prakash
Building, 25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi
110001 ...Appellant.
Versus
1- Dr. Shivcharan Lal Memorial Society
Through Mr. Kamal Kishore Aggarwal,
Secretary, Sudhir Nursing Home, Kala Aam,
Bulandshahr, U.P.
2- M/s Rohan Motors Limited, 432, Mukand
Nagar, G.T. Road, Ghaziabad, U.P. …Respondents.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member.
Sri Aditya Srivastava, Advocate for appellant.
Sri T.H. Naqvi, Advocate for the respondents.
Date 13.12.2022
JUDGMENT
Per Sri Sushil Kumar, Member- This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 15.9.2003 passed by the ld. District Forum in complaint case no.134 of 1998, Dr. Shivcharan Lal Memorial Society vs. H.S. Mehta & anr., whereby the opposite party no.1/appellant has been directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.40,000.00 towards excise duty rebate alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.
As per allegation of the complainant, he bought a Maruti Omni for ambulance purposes from the respondent no.2 on 3.1.1997. The opposite party promised to refund the excise duty amounting to Rs.40,000.00 to the complainant but failed to refund the said excise rebate. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint case for recovery of above excise duty.
The appellant submitted that the complainant is not entitled to get refund of excise duty. The Central Government issued a notification bearing no.8/96 which stipulates the condition of attracting the excise duty rebate on certain types ambulance. This rebate is available for the ambulance used by
(2)
the hospitals, nursing homes or sanatoriums run by the Central Government/State Government/U.T./Local Authority.
We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order as well as concerned notification issued by the Central government regarding rebate on purchasing ambulance for the purposes of hospitals etc.
The complaint case was decided on 15.9.2003 while the appeal is filed on 12.1.2004 after a lapse of about 3 months. No application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is unable to show sufficient reason for condoning the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned without proper explanation. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed being filing with delay without any explanation.
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed as time barred.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Vikas Saxena) (Sushil Kumar)
Member Presiding Member
Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.
Consign to record.
(Vikas Saxena) (Sushil Kumar)
Member Presiding Member
Jafr, PA I
Court 3
