Haryana Paper Mills vs Union Of India
1995 Latest Caselaw 307 Del

JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta, J.

(1) The respondent has preferred these objections to the award made and published on 28.2.1990 by Shri Shiv Prakash, Additional Legal Advisor to the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi the sole arbitrator appointed by the Director General of Supplies and Disposal, New Delhi. Disputes had arisen amongst parties within the ambit of arbitration clause contained in the agreement entered into between the parties with respect to work of contract contained in Rate Contract No. POM-9/RC-Paper/0682 Writing |& Printing/82-83/322/COAD dated 21.1.1983.

(2) The objector alleges that the arbitrator misconducted himself in making the award which is not based on documentary evidence. The objector had pointed out before the arbitrator that the claimant had failed to furnish any documentary evidence showing payment of excise duty to the tune of Rs.3,57,679.63. Without going into this aspect the arbitrator erred in awarding 50% of the amount without even himself verifying if at all claimant had made the payment or was entitled to it or not.

(3) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties who have taken me through the entire record.

(4) The arbitrator held the claim to be admissible under Clause 3(b) (1) of the rate contract holding that the same is justified to the extent of 50% of the claim laid as the claimants were entitled to an exemption to the extent of 50% of the duty leviable.

(5) The sole grievance of the objector in the petition is that no proof was furnished by the claimant as regards the payment of excise duty. In the absence of proof of the claimant having paid the excise duty, award could not have been made.

(6) I am afraid such an objection is not tenable since under the relevant clause under rate contract claim is not dependant upon the actual payment of amount by the claimant. Claim had been lodged through letters dated 7.4.1983 and 18.4.1983, receipt of which letters was not in dispute. Claimant had given an undertaking that the excess in excise duty, as demanded on account of revision in Finance Budget 1983-84 will be refunded in case the Finance proposal does not become an Act. It is not in dispute that there has been a revision in the Budget justifying the claimant to lodge a claim on account of increase in excise duty. It is also not in dispute that in so far as the claimant is concerned the extent of exemption allowable was 50% of the duty leviable as per clause 23 regarding excise duty which was stipulated in the rate contract. Statutory variation in excise duty was to be paid extra for supplies made during the currency of the contract. Nowhere in the rate contract it was stipulated that claimant was to render proof of payment of actual excise duty before the claim being allowed by the respondent. That will be a separate issue since claimant under law was obliged to pay the excise duty and was also entitled to duty exemption of 50%. The arbitrator allowed, thus was justified in not allowing the full claim but allowing the claim only to the extent of 50%.

(7) Consequently, the objections having no merit are dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the objections, award made by the arbitrator is made a rule of court and decree in terms thereof is passed in favor of claimant against the respondent. Claimant will also be entitled to interest on the decretal amount at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of award till payment. Award shall form part of the decree.