Arbitral award interpretation upheld where "change in taxes/duties" covered higher excise duty after reclassification of goods.

In an appeal under Section 37, interference with an arbitral award is limited to narrow grounds, and a court will not reappreciate evidence or substitute another possible contractual interpretation for the arbitrator's plausible view. The expression "change in taxes/duties" was capable of covering a higher excise duty arising from reclassification of goods, so the arbitral interpretation affirmed under Section 34 was a possible view on the contract and record. No ground for interference was made out, and the award was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted under Section 37 with the arbitral award and the order under Section 34 on the question whether the contractual expression "change in taxes/duties" covered higher excise duty paid after reclassification of the goods.

Analysis: The appeal was examined within the narrow limits governing interference with arbitral awards. The Court held that it cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view for a plausible interpretation adopted by the arbitrator and affirmed under Section 34. On the contract, the expression "change in taxes/duties" was held capable of including a change in classification that resulted in a higher duty incidence. Since the arbitral view was a possible view based on the contract and the material on record, no ground for interference was made out.

Conclusion: No interference was called for and the award as upheld under Section 34 was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal under Section 37, a court will not interfere with an arbitral award or its affirmation under Section 34 when the arbitrator has adopted a plausible contractual interpretation and the challenge merely seeks reappreciation of evidence or substitution of another possible view.

---