TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Judge in OMP (COMM.) 355/2024. Vide the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the appellant's challenge to the arbitral award dated 20.05.2024 by way of a petition under Section 34 of the Act. 2. The brief factual matrix as emerging from the record shows that the appellant issued a Notice Inviting Tender [NIT] on 03.04.2013 for supply of 24 Fibre Metal Free Optical Fibre Cable with double HDPE Sheath (G.652D) and accessories divided into Six Packages (Package 'A' to Package 'F'). The respondent submitted an invitation which was accepted and consequently, two Purchase Orders both dated 25.03.2014 were issued in favour of the respondent, the first being in respect of package 'A' for Rs. 30,25,28,952.07/- and the second bein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....67,26,437/- against refund of deductions made on account of excise duty, central sales tax, entry tax and testing charges in respect of Package A; (ii) Claim of Rs. 1,85,70,315/- against refund of deductions made on account of excise duty, central sales tax, entry tax and testing charges in respect of Package F; (iii) Claim of Rs. 9,97,58,113/- being interest at the rate of 18% till 29.02.2020; and (iv) Claim of Rs. 26,54,043/- towards interest on excess margin money deposited with the bank for issuance of PBG, extra commission paid to the bank for issuance of PBG and interest on extra commission paid to bank for the issuance of PBG." 5. The above, consequently led to passing off an arbitral award on 20.05.2024, wherein the learned A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trator as also the learned Single Judge have overlooked the fact that the certificate produced by the respondent in support of his plea that Excise Duty had been paid @ 12.36% was not verified. In the wake of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed. 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents on record as well. 11. At the outset, we may note that though the learned Arbitrator agreed with the appellant that the parties were bound by the terms reflected in the Purchase Orders, it found that the claim of the respondents seeking differential amount of excise duty fell within the ambit of the contract and consequently....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scribed as 90011000) "Optical fibers and optical fiber bundles; optical fiber cables other than those of heading 8544; sheets and plates of polarising material; lenses (including contact lenses), prisms, mirrors and other optical elements, of any material, unmounted, other than such elements of glass not optically worked."" 14. After examining the technical specification of the goods as stipulated in the Purchase Order, and considering the decision of the Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi in Re: Alcatel India Ltd., 2006 SCC OnLine AAR-IT 26, the learned arbitrator agreed with the respondent that the goods had been correctly classified under the Tariff Head No. 9001 (also described as 90011000). 15. It would also be apposite to no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of any prevailing law and/ or provisions of the Act and/ or any terms of the contract. The Court may also interfere when the award is found to be patently illegal or in conflict with the public policy of India. 18. In this regard, reference may be made to the decisions in UHL Power Company Limited vs State of Himachal Pradesh, (2022) 4 SCC 116; Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited, (2022) 1 SCC 131 and Haryana Tourism Limited vs. Kandhari Beverages Limited, (2022) 3 SCC 237, wherein it has been held that it is impermissible for the Court to reappreciate evidence and that when two plausible interpretations of the Arbitral Award are possible, fault cannot be found with the tribunal if it proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....37, is concerned, it cannot be disputed that such interference under Section 37 cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34. In other words, the Court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award, and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the Court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision. Thus, it is evident that in case an arbitral award has been confirmed by the Court under Section 34 and by the Court in an appeal under Section 37, this Court must be extremely cautious and slow to disturb such concurrent findings." 22. Reference may also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty. Ltd. vs MMTC Ltd.: (2021) 3 SCC ....