Summary
A cement manufacturer claimed reimbursement of peak-load exemption charges under a four-year industrial power-tariff freeze. The Court held that the promise concerned normal supply tariff, while peak-hour supply was a separately arranged special dispensation carrying a surcharge. The manufacturer was not entitled to reimbursement; any amount already reimbursed had to be returned with six per cent annual interest.
Issues
- Whether peak-load exemption charges fell within the promised reimbursement of increased power tariff.
- Whether the 1996 rules’ express exclusion changed the interpretation of the earlier incentive.
Held
- Tariff must be understood in the context of the particular incentive. Before production began, the company knew normal supply would not be available during peak hours. Supply during those hours required a special arrangement, with additional charges and separate metering, and power procured from other sources. The peak-load charge therefore operated as a surcharge for a special dispensation, outside the freeze of normal tariff. (¶ 10–11)
- The 1996 incentive rules’ express exclusion of peak-load charges could reasonably be treated as clarifying doubts. It did not establish that the earlier incentive covered those charges or alter the contextual meaning of the original promise. (¶¶ 6, 11)
- No peak-load exemption reimbursement was due for the four years beginning with commercial production on 26 September 1995. Any reimbursement already received had to be returned forthwith with six per cent annual interest. (¶ 12–13)
Result
State appeal allowed and High Court order set aside; peak-load reimbursement refused, with any amounts already paid repayable forthwith at six per cent annual interest.