Sh R. K Jain, Sole Proprietor, M/s R. R Industries, E­219, Saket, Meerut, U.P­250003. .......Respondent. Unique case I.D No. : 02401C 0571972010 Date of Institution : 13.12.2010. Date of Reserving Order : 21.01.2016. Date of Order : 23.01.2016. PETITIION UNDER SECTION 34 OF ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 FOR SETTING ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 17.09.2010. Result: Petition dismissed. Page 1 of 19 UOI v R.K. Jain CS No.129/11 ORDER 1. This order shall dispose of the application of the petitioners above named under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after called as 'the Act') against the Arbitral Award dated 17.09.2010 filed on 13.12.2010 against the respondent above named. 2. As per facts in brief, the petitioner invited the tender no. CS­139/1999 for manufacturing and supply of Elastic Rail Clip (ERC) of component used to fix the rail with sleepers. The major components of same are steel rod with fuel, electricity, machinery, tool and plants etc as per Annexure P1. Over and above the accepted rates, Central/State Sale Tax and Excise Duty was leviable and payable by the respondent which was to be reimbursed by the petitioner. As per the prevalent Modified Value Added Tax (MODVAT) claim, any excise duty paid on purchase of raw materials is accounted for while calculating the excise duty due on finished product. Thus, the double taxation of Excise duty is avoided. The instructions related to MODVAT were contained as per clause 9.3.1 of letter dated 11.8.1999 i.e corrigendum to notice inviting the tender. The price to be quoted was after accounting the credit availed on all inputs as on the date of opening of tender under MODVAT. A declaration was to be issued by the tenderers that any set off in respect of duties on all the inputs on date of tender is being unconditionally passed on to the purchaser. What implies is that the benefit available on various Result: Petition dismissed. Page 2 of 19 UOI v R.K. Jain CS No.129/11 inputs as on the date of tender should be retained by the tenderers. 2.1. Clause 9.3.2 provided that any variation in the benefits under MODVAT accruing after the date of opening of tender on steel rods shall be to purchaser's account and thus the amount should be indicated in the tender itself. 2.2. The tender was opened on 23.08.1999 in which respondent submitted that, "The present benefit of Rs.2.74 per clip is accounted for .......". 2.3. It is claimed that the respondent did not indicate MODVAT benefits on steel rods. The petitioner issued the first counter offer which was not agreed and thus the second counter offer was issued vide letter dated 25.9.2000 that was unconditionally accepted by the respondent vide letter dated 3.10.2000. The purchase order dated 23.5.2001 was entered for manufacture and supply of 2.43 lacs pieces of ERC MK III at basic rate of Rs.20.60. The issue of tax was covered in para 7.1 while the issue of MODVAT was covered in para 7.3. 2.4. Further, the petitioner vide letter dated 19.9.2001 placed additional purchase order of 4.23 lacs ERC MK III on same rates and conditions thereby making the total quantity to 6.66 lacs prices to be supplied by the respondent. 2.5. It is further averred