AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Company incorporated and registered under The Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at DSO-601-603, 607-608, 6th floor, DLF South Court, Saket, New Delhi-110017 and is engaged in the business of rendering service in the field of Information technology infrastructure. The appellant herein, on the other hand, is an incorporated Company and is a State Government undertaking of Himachal Pradesh. 4. Apparently, claimant/ respondent herein participated in a bid invited by the appellant for Installation and commissioning of IT infrastructure, Data Centre and Disaster Recovery centre for ERP Implementation with Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. After evaluation, the appellant, vide letter dated 19.09.2011, accepted the claimant's bid dated 28.06.2011 for execution of Installation and commissioning of aforesaid project for a consideration of Rs.19,61,52,962.00 (Nineteen crore sixty one lakh fifty two thousand nine hundred and sixty two). 5. The parties inter se entered into an Agreement dated 20.10.2011 and agreed to be abide by the terms and conditions of the said Agreement. The execution of the work under the Agreement was to procure equipments through import an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod of 90 (ninety) days from the date of award. The claimant/respondent was awarded interest @ 10% p.a, on the sum of Rs. 1,00,30,984/- (rupees one crore thirty thousand nine hundred and eighty four only) for the period from three months after the last import of equipment in January 2012 till the date of award and a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- (rupees seven lacs fifty thousand only) as costs. Reasons which prevailed before the learned Single Judge to uphold the Award: 10. The learned Single did not deem it fit to take a different view than what the learned Arbitrator had taken and upheld the said Award of the learned Arbitrator, while placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Sutlej Construction Ltd. vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh (2018) 1 SCC 718 and Navodaya Mass Entertainment vs. J.M. Combines (2015) 5 SCC 698. 11. The reason which prevailed with the learned Single Judge to uphold the said majority award of the Arbitral Tribunal towards the reimbursement of the custom duty on the import rates item and not to interfere in the same though there was a minority view in favour of the corporation on account of the conjoint reading of Clauses 14.2 and 21.4 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded the ownership of the plant to be imported into a country to be transferred to the employer upon loading of the mode of the transport and similarly Clause 40 that the extension of time for completion of the project could have been applied for under various circumstances and that they were not liable to pay custom duty as they could have availed the exemption which was available to it and the contractor had acted hastily and imported the goods without waiting for the exemption of duties and therefore, they were not liable to pay additional financial burden due to acts of omission and commission on the part of the vendor and Clause 45.3 regarding notice of dissatisfaction to be given in the manner provided for the entitlement of the commencement of the arbitration proceedings. 15. In contrast, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Devashish Bharuka, for the claimant/respondent has brought to our notice that a meeting was held on 02.11.2011, which was a kick-off meeting between the parties and the decision taken was that the supply in configuration of the site servers was to be done by 15.01.2012, which was the dead line fixed. He has referred to the communication dated 06.05.2013 wherein ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, it was accordingly submitted that as per the communication dated 25.04.2016, since the dispute Board had conveyed its decision that the employer was not responsible for the payment which was exempted in the hands of the Corporation and paid by the contractor, there was no valid reasons given and the matter had been rightly referred to the arbitrator. The customs having declined as such to process the case and having rejected the said claim for custom duty of Rs.1.30 crores, on the basis of Clause 14.2, had been rightly granted by the Tribunal. Reasons given by the Tribunal: 17. We have also, with the assistance of the Counsels, gone through the majority Award passed by the Tribunal and also the dissenting award of the Single Member. The reasons as such of the Award which has kept in mind the terms of general condition of the contract and given its findings would go on to show that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Corporation should have asked the claimant not to act on the import as they were not in a position to issue exemption certificate. The completion period being 21+19 days and no communication having been addressed regarding the exemption from certificat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lities for customs clearance, subject to the Employer's obligations under GCC Sub-Clause 14.2, provided that if applicable laws or regulations require any application or act to be made by or in the name of the Employer, the Employer shall take all necessary steps to comply with such laws or regulations. In the event of delays in customs clearance that are not the fault of the Contractor, the Contractor shall be entitled to an extension in the Time for Completion, pursuant to GCC Clause 40." 18. The imports having been made from December, 2011 to January,2012 was in the knowledge of the Corporation and the contractor being under pressure to meet the dead line and respondent not having objected to the imports, the view of the dissenting member was held not to be justified. Similarly, it was held that dissatisfaction noted on 5th April did not disclose any reason and was not in conformity with Clause 14.53. The amount was then liable to be paid as per the award. As noticed, the said majority view has been upheld, the minority view which has been relied upon by the appellant as such that the correct procedure should have been followed and it should not have been imported without....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise the same power and jurisdiction that Section 34 Court possesses with the same constraints. 27. In the facts of the case in hand, while deciding the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the learned Single Judge has made a very elaborate consideration of the submissions made across the Bar, the findings recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal and the issue of illegality or perversity of the award. Detailed reasons while dealing with the alleged patent illegalities associated with the directions issued under the arbitral award have been recorded. Considering the nature of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, the job of the Appellate Court was to scrutinize the said findings and to decide, one way or the other, on merits. In this case, the finding of the Appellate Bench that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge does not address several issues raised by the parties cannot be sustained at all." 21.In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (c) No. 27699 of 2018, Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. And another vs. M/s Sanman Rice Mills and others, the order passed under Section 37 was set aside while noting that the arbitrator had held t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of customs leviable thereon under First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), the whole of the additional duty of customs leviable thereon under Section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act and the whole of the special duty of customs leviable under Section 68 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1996 (33 of 1996): Provided that the importer, at the time of clearance of the goods, produces before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, having jurisdiction, - (i) in case the said goods are- (a), (b), & (ii)xxxxxxxxxx (iii) in case the said goods are intended to be used in a project financed (whether by a loan or a grant) by the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank or any other international organization, other than those listed in the Annexure and the said project has-been-approved by the Government of India for implementation by the Government of a State or a Union Territory, a certificate from the executive head of the Project Implementing Authority and countersigned by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary (Finance), as the case may be, in the concerned State Government or the Union....