9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 in relation to enhanced excise duty claim. Analysis: The judgment by S. Kapoor, J. of the Delhi High Court dealt with petition No. 296A/91 under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and objections in I.A. No. 8510/93 against an award by Shri D.M. Spolia on October 15, 1990. The dispute arose from an agreement for the supply of rum where the petitioner claimed enhanced excise duty due to a government notification increasing export duty. The petitioner argued that Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 was not applied correctly. The court examined the agreement terms and Section 64A, which allows for price adjustments based on tax changes post-contract. The clause in the agreement indicated that rates were inclusive of all charges except special duty in Delhi. The court noted that the clause in the agreement did not indicate a different intention regarding tax changes, thus Section 64A applied. The court emphasized that the exceptional clause in Section 64A applies unless a different intention appears from the contract terms. It was observed that the clause covers present and future levies, indicating that the responsibility to pay enhanced duty lies with the petitioner. The judgment referenced past cases to highlight the importance of interpreting statutes in line with legislative intent and the purpose of the law. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the same principle should apply to both increase and decrease in duties, stating that the agreement terms did not support the claim for enhanced price due to increased export duty. Furthermore, the court noted that the specific agreement between the parties precluded the petitioner from claiming an enhancement in price due to increased export duty. The judgment highlighted that under Section 9 of the Sales of Goods Act, the price in a contract may be fixed by the parties unless a different intention is evident. The court also emphasized that it cannot interfere with an arbitrator's decision unless there is a clear error of law. Ultimately, the court dismissed the objections against the award, making it a part of the decree. The judgment concluded that the claimant's objections were without merit, and the award by Shri D.M. Spolia was upheld.
|
