Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (3) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it was not availed of by the claimant/appellant has not been noticed by the learned Single Judge and whichever way the issue is looked at, the exchequer suffered no loss. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has unjustifiably interfered with the finding of fact recorded by the arbitrator and has not even dealt with the said finding. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in respect of the award on Claim Nos. (a) & (d) is set aside. The award dated 18-6-1998 is consequently made Rule of the Court. The award on claim Nos. (a) and (d) is restored. The decree be drawn up as per the award. - 234 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 26-3-2009 - Mukul Mudgal and Vipin Sanghi, JJ. [Judgment per : Mukul Mudgal, J. (Oral)]. - T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . This claim and another claim towards balance 2% price against the supply orders were accordingly referred to arbitration. Similarly, in respect of purchase order No. 5253 dated 7-12-1987 the claimant claimed Rs. 1,32,134.54 towards the difference in the price increase and excise duty, which was not granted by the respondent apart from claiming the 2% balance price of Rs. 64,398.49 and interest thereon. The claimant relied upon Circular No. 1374 dated 27-7-1987 from the Cable Conductor Manufacturers Association of India showing the increase in price in this regard. The arbitrator allowed the claims made by the appellant. So far as the claim towards balance 2% price is concerned, the same has been upheld by the learned Single Judge as well .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r are justified on the following grounds: (i) The claimants claim for price increase in respect of both the supply orders, is in accordance with the price variation clause. Moreover, the claimant has not received Modvat benefit while paying excise duty on finished goods. …………………………" 5. As aforesaid, the learned Single Judge has reversed the findings of the arbitrator so far as the award on the claims relating to difference payable on account of increase in the cost of the raw material and excise duty is concerned. The finding of the learned Single Judge in this respect reads as follows: "In respect of 1st supply The petitioner claims that the price of the EC Grade Aluminium was increased by government from Rs. 22,187.55 inclusive .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aim of the petitioner is accepted, that will amount to charging Excise duty on the basic price which as specifically agreed in the contract was not payable. The learned arbitrator has obviously not considered the contract and the other relevant material placed on record. In fact, both the parties have taken ambiguous and rather misleading stand in their pleadings before the arbitrator. The arbitrator in awarding claims contrary to specific terms of the contract has misconducted in law and the award to this effect is not warranted in law. This error is patent on the record. This part of the award is thus liable to be set aside. The other claim of the petitioner is similarly for the difference in price in respect of second supply which is c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nsel for the appellant is that the arbitrator had given his reasons while making the award in favour of the appellant and the arbitrator had interpreted the terms of the contract in a plausible way. It was not open to the Court while hearing objections to the award to sit as an appellate forum and to re-examine the claim on its own according to its own understanding of the contract between the parties. If the view taken by the arbitrator was a plausible view, the same could not have been interfered with. 7. The learned Arbitrator returned a finding of fact that the appellant claimant had not received Modvat benefit while paying excise duty on finished goods. It appears that this aspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates