Billing-date price clause allows pass-through of enhanced excise duty absent proven negligent delivery delay.

Where booking documents, the proforma invoice and the receipt stipulate that the price prevailing on the date of billing applies, the purchaser bears an enhanced excise-duty-linked price if billing occurs after the duty increase. The absence of proof of deliberate delay, negligence or mala fide conduct by the dealer or manufacturer means the increased burden is not shifted to them. The Sale of Goods Act position was treated as consistent with recovery of the enhanced price from the customer, and the challenge to consumer commission findings therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the purchaser was liable to bear the increase in price arising from enhanced excise duty where the booking documents and receipt stipulated that the price prevailing on the date of billing would apply; (ii) Whether the alleged delay in delivery or absence of availability of the chosen colour made the dealer or manufacturer liable for the increased duty burden.

Issue (i): Whether the purchaser was liable to bear the increase in price arising from enhanced excise duty where the booking documents and receipt stipulated that the price prevailing on the date of billing would apply.

Analysis: The delivery documents and proforma invoice indicated that payment and delivery were subject to the price prevailing at the time of billing. The receipt issued on payment also reflected the same stipulation. Since billing was completed after the excise duty increase, and no deliberate intention to delay delivery was established, the contractual terms governed the price payable.

Conclusion: The purchaser was liable to bear the enhanced price, and the respondents were not liable for the increased excise duty.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged delay in delivery or absence of availability of the chosen colour made the dealer or manufacturer liable for the increased duty burden.

Analysis: The Court found no evidence of deliberate delay, negligence, or mala fide conduct on the part of the dealer or manufacturer. The decisions relied upon by the purchaser were distinguished because those cases involved patent deficiency in service and unexplained delay, which were not established here. The statutory position under the Sale of Goods Act also supported the conclusion that the enhanced price was recoverable from the customer.

Conclusion: The alleged delay did not shift the burden of the increased price to the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order of the consumer commission failed, and the enhanced duty burden remained with the purchaser.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the contract and billing documents stipulate that the price prevailing on the date of billing governs, and no negligent or mala fide delay in delivery is proved, enhancement in duty before billing can be passed on to the purchaser.

---