https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462210 A power procurement contract with an express change-in-law mechanism did not permit recovery of costs arising from a higher water intake system estimate, because bidders were required to verify site conditions and the pre-bid report was disclaimed as non-binding; an erroneous or inadequate report could not itself create a compensable legal change. The office memorandum dated 17.06.2011 also did not amount to a change in law for customs duty on mining equipment, as the record did not show a pre-existing exemption for captive coal mine imports or a proven shift in the legal position. In both respects, the contractual claims failed. en-us Thu, 06 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 May 2025 17:07:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462210 A power procurement contract with an express change-in-law mechanism did not permit recovery of costs arising from a higher water intake system estimate, because bidders were required to verify site conditions and the pre-bid report was disclaimed as non-binding; an erroneous or inadequate report could not itself create a compensable legal change. The office memorandum dated 17.06.2011 also did not amount to a change in law for customs duty on mining equipment, as the record did not show a pre-existing exemption for captive coal mine imports or a proven shift in the legal position. In both respects, the contractual claims failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462210