The main legal point established in the judgment is that the terms and conditions of the completed contract are binding, and the offer of advertisement cannot override the terms of the completed contract.

A. K. MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the division Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby the arbitration award given by the sole arbitrator was affirmed by learned single Judge of the High Court and in appeal affirmed by the division Bench by its order dated 22. 9. 2006. Hence the present appeal by the appellant- Security Printing and Minting corporation of India Limited and another.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant No. 2 is the General Manager of india Security Press which is a Government of India Undertaking functioning under the Ministry of Finance. M/s. Gandhi industrial Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the claimant') is a partnership firm. Prior to 1966, the appellant no. 2 before us (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the security press') was importing its entire requirement of gummed stamp paper from foreign countries. From 1967 onwards the security press commenced purchasing of Ashoka Pillar water mark stamp base paper from Paper manufacturing mills. The base paper was thereafter gummed and super-calendared by the contractor on a job work. In 1967 the claimant established a pilot plant for purpose of manufacturing gummed stamp paper at the instance of appellant- security press. The claimant set up the factory at umbergaon in Thane district and the plant was commissioned in 1969. The claimant received orders for gumming and super-calendaring of stamp based papers. In the year 1976 the appellant for the first time floated tender for gumming and super-calendaring work. Again in 1989 the Security press floated tender and the claimant questioned the action of the security press by filing writ petition before the High Court but did not succeed. The tender was again floated in 1996 and the grievance of the claimant was that though the offer made by it was the lowest and the claimant further reduced the rates in view of the agreement reached between the parties, which agreement has been described as memorandum of understanding, for offering the work exclusively to the claimant for a period of 10 years so as to enable the claimant to optimally utilize the capacity of its plant. Then certain orders were given to other persons which was protested by the claimant and it filed a writ petition on the original side of the High Court of bombay. The claimant also filed arbitration application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' ). The High Court of bombay with the consent of parties nominated Justice Shri m. L. Pendse (retired) as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties by its order dated 7. 12. 2001. The claimant thereafter informed the High Court that writ Petition No. 3980 of 1996 be withdrawn and the issues raised therein may also be referred to arbitration. We are not concerned with other issues. We are only concerned with one issue which has been raised before us for our consideration i. e. point No. 4 and the order of the Arbitrator pertaining to claim no. 3. It related to the value of modvat. The claimant sought a sum of Rs. 2,95, 99,673/- on the basis that the value of the modvat was to the extent of Rs. 51,48,468/- to which compound interest at the rate of 25. 50 per cent per annum was payable by the security press to the claimant. The claimant submitted that in March, 1994 the claimant's unit was covered by Rule 57a of the Central Excise Rules, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules') and thereby the Modvat scheme became applicable. The claim for modvat credit can be made only by the manufacture. After the claimant was covered under the Modvat scheme the security press issued necessary gate passes to enable the claimant to avail of the modvat credit. The security press floated tenders on 2. 5. 1994 and the tender documents nowhere suggested that the modvat credit will not b