<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2007 (10) TMI 9 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2261</link>
    <description>An express clause in the concluded supply order required any Modvat credit availed on the excise duty element in the base paper to be passed on to the security press. The contractor accepted and performed the order despite protesting the stipulation, so the binding terms of the completed contract prevailed over earlier tender conditions. The arbitrator&#039;s reliance on the absence of such a clause in the tender notice, and the conclusion that the credit belonged to the contractor, was inconsistent with the contract and could not stand. The sub silentio argument was rejected because the Modvat clause had been specifically raised and disputed by both sides.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41631" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 9 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2261</link>
      <description>An express clause in the concluded supply order required any Modvat credit availed on the excise duty element in the base paper to be passed on to the security press. The contractor accepted and performed the order despite protesting the stipulation, so the binding terms of the completed contract prevailed over earlier tender conditions. The arbitrator&#039;s reliance on the absence of such a clause in the tender notice, and the conclusion that the credit belonged to the contractor, was inconsistent with the contract and could not stand. The sub silentio argument was rejected because the Modvat clause had been specifically raised and disputed by both sides.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2261</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>