9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being a plausible view arrived at by the learned Arbitrator and upheld by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal under Section 37 of the Act, where the scope is as it is very minimal. Though the learned counsel for the appellant had tried to urge that the interpretation of the Clause III.12.2 of the Purchase Orders given by the learned Arbitrator is incorrect, the said possible interpretation rendered by the learned Arbitrator cannot be appealed, which has also been accepted by the learned Single Judge. Reference may be made to the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in MMTC LTD. VERSUS M/S VEDANTA LTD. [ 2019 (2) TMI 1085 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held ' the Court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award, and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the Court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision. Thus, it is evident that in case an arbitral award has been confirmed by the Court under Section 34 and by the Court in an appeal under Section 37, this Court must be extremely cautious and slow to disturb such concurrent findings.' There are no reason to interfere either with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resisted by the appellant on the ground that the change in classification of the goods would not amount to change in law and, therefore, the respondent could not seek reimbursement of the amount paid towards the enhanced duty. 4. It is this dispute which led to invocation of arbitration proceedings by the respondent before the learned Arbitrator wherein it raised the following claims:- (i) Claim of Rs. 67,26,437/- against refund of deductions made on account of excise duty, central sales tax, entry tax and testing charges in respect of Package A; (ii) Claim of Rs. 1,85,70,315/- against refund of deductions made on account of excise duty, central sales tax, entry tax and testing charges in respect of Package F; (iii) Claim of Rs. 9,97,58,113/- being interest at the rate of 18% till 29.02.2020; and (iv) Claim of Rs. 26,54,043/- towards interest on excess margin money deposited with the bank for issuance of PBG, extra commission paid to the bank for issuance of PBG and interest on extra commission paid to bank for the issuance of PBG. 5. The above, consequently led to passing off an arbitral award on 20.05.2024, wherein the learned Arbitrator accepted the respondent s plea and came t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while dealing with the claims of the respondent being on account of a change in taxes , held them to be within the meaning of Clause III.12.2 of the NIT which envisaged that For changes in taxes/ duties during the scheduled delivery period, the unit price shall be regulated as under for which purpose he relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal, (1986) 1 SCC 100. The learned Arbitrator therefore concluded that the claim of the respondent was in consance with the terms of the contract as the term change in taxes would include change in classification leading to levy of higher tax. 13. Further, the learned Arbitrator also analyzed the two competing classifications for levy of excise duty, one applied by the appellant and the other applied by the excise authorities. For the sake of completeness, we may note these two classifications, which read as under:- Head 8544 Insulated (including enamelled or anodised) wire, cable (including co-axial cable) and other insulated electric conductors, whether or not fitted with connectors; optical fibre cables, made up of individually sheathed fibres, whether or not assembled with electric con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt may also interfere when the award is found to be patently illegal or in conflict with the public policy of India. 18. In this regard, reference may be made to the decisions in UHL Power Company Limited vs State of Himachal Pradesh, (2022) 4 SCC 116; Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited, (2022) 1 SCC 131 and Haryana Tourism Limited vs. Kandhari Beverages Limited, (2022) 3 SCC 237, wherein it has been held that it is impermissible for the Court to reappreciate evidence and that when two plausible interpretations of the Arbitral Award are possible, fault cannot be found with the tribunal if it proceeds to accept any one of the two interpretations. 19. The record reveals that in the present case the appellant has neither raised any dispute qua any of the invoices raised by the respondent nor has it amended any of the terms of the Purchase Orders. The only plea of the appellant both before the learned Single Judge and before us is that Clause III.12 of the Purchase Orders would not include a demand towards higher duty paid by the respondent due to change in classification of the goods. We however find no merit in this plea, as in our o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
