Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: intermediate component in Steel Authority Of India Limited vs M/S Primetals Technologies India Pvt ... on 23 February, 2026Matching Fragments
4.3 The argument is that the arbitrator has rewritten the terms of the contract, the respondent violated Article 2.1 of the contract by not passing the MGCC of Rs.4,65,71,592/- and the arbitrator erred in disallowing the deduction made for shortfall in MGCC.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:HONEY O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2023 Page 3 of 19 ARORA Signing Date:23.02.2026 15:38:554.4 It is argued that there was no evidence that the shortfall in MGCC was on account of variation in the rate of taxes and the respondent in compliance with clause 14.6.2 failed to submit the required documents. It is stated that clause 14.6.3 of the contract deals only with variation in taxes of finished goods and not raw materials, parts, components, intermediate component, assemblies, sub- assemblies, etc. The challenge to the award is on the ground that it is violative of Section 31(3) of the Act and is non-speaking. 4.5 The contention is that cost of litigation awarded is exorbitant. SUBMISSIOIN OF THE RESPONDENT
No adjustment in the Contract price shall be made for variations in the taxes on raw materials, parts, component / intermediate components, assemblies / sub-assemblies, etc."
12. The „contract price‟ as defined in Article 2.1 of the contract is Rs.44,93,20,127/-, a minimum CENVAT amount of Rs.4,65,71,592/- was to be passed on by the respondent to BSP.