9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. However, this clause was not acceptable to Union of India and vide letter dated 15-1-1987 the appellant agreed to withdraw the clause regarding variation on account of Modvat. The appellant's rate contract was accepted vide letter dated 15-6-1987 for supply of AAC/ACS conductors during the period 30-4-1987 to 31-12-1987. The said rate contract specifically provided that the prices are variable as per tender enquiry based on the raw material-EC grade aluminium's basic price plus excise duty. The rate contract permitted excise duty on supply of AAC and ACS based on actual, as applicable at the time of supply. 3. The respondent placed the supply order bearing No. 2074 dated 2-9-2007 on the appellant under the rate contract. In the meantim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under : "The circular dated 8-6-88 referred to in the Pleadings and a copy of which has been supplied by the claimants has been gone through and duly considered. The circular has been issued by DGS&D and addressed to the claimant contractor in which it is stated as under : - "Consequent upon increase in price of FC Grade Aluminium Ingots w.e.f. 19-1-88 announced by the Govt., the following revision in the prices is hereby authorized in terms of the clause 12(a) of the R/C. 1. Prices increase payable w.e.f. 18-2-88 in Alum. Prices for AAC conductors : - Item A(i) FOR: Rs. 2229.47 READ: Rs. 2330.21 A(ii) FOR: Rs. 4321.16 READ: Rs. 4519.88 NOTE: The increase in respect of (I) above shall b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the respondent Rs. 571.05 per MT 2. Weight of aluminium consumed per km. 144 kg. 3. Quantity supplied 500.00 kms. 4. Total increase on 500 kms. 57.09x144 x 500 1000 = Rs. 41,118.48 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner is similarly for the difference in price in respect of second supply which is claimed as under :- (a) Difference on which the price increase was not allowed by the respondent Rs. 2,249.75 PMT (b) Weight of Aluminium consumed By the respondent 144 kg. (c) Actual quantity 407.868 kms. (d) Total price increase 2249.75 x 144 x 407.868 &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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, who has proceeded to examine the claim afresh on his own. In our view the approach of the learned Single Judge in this case was not correct, inasmuch as, he proceeded to step into the shoes of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
