J UDGMENT : KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J. Heard Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned CGC appearing for the respondents Union of India. 2] This appeal is presented under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the judgment & order dated 12.04.2023 passed in Original Application No. OAIII-25/2016 (Old) by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”), whereby the claim filed by the appellant/consignor seeking refund of additional freight was rejected. 3] The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/consignor booked 42 BCN wagons for transporting a consignment of iodized salt intended to be transported via railway under the 'train load (class 100)' [hereinafter referred to as the 'train load') scheme by registering under the classification of two-point destination terminals rake, i.e., 21 BCN wagons to Harmoti and 21 BCN wagons to Dekargaon from Chirai (hereinafter referred to as the subject consignment). Accordingly, the appellant/consignor paid all freight money of Rs. 55,08,341/- at the time of booking at Chirai railway station vide Money Receipt No. 542024 dated 30.09.2015. It is the specific case of the appellant/consignor that on the next date, i.e., on 01.10.2015, the railway authorities at the booking point collected additional freight to the tune of Rs. 27,54,222/- vide Money Receipt No. 542025, treating the booking of the appellant/consignor under the 'wagon load (class 150)' (hereinafter referred to as the 'wagon load') condition despite the fact that the consignment was booked under the 'train load' condition. Aggrieved by such additional freight being levied from the appellant/consignor, the appellant/consignor on 10.08.2016 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for a refund of the additional freight collected by the railway authorities to the tune of Rs. 27,54,222/-. Upon receipt of a written statement from the railway authorities on 13.04.2021, the Tribunal framed the following issues: - “1. Whether statutory legal notice under Section 106 of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989 has been duly served? 2. Whether the applicant holds legal title? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation as claimed in the claim application and to what extent? 4. Whether statutory legal notice under Section 106 of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989 has been duly served? 2. Whether the applicant holds legal title? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation as claimed in the claim application and to what extent? 4. Reliefs and costs?” 4] Thereafter, upon hearing the parties, the Tribunal, by judgment dated 12.04.2023, was pleased to hold the first two issues as regards the legality of the statutory legal notice under Section 106 of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989, (hereinafter referred to as the “1989 Act”), and the legal title of the appellant in favour of the appellant/consignor. However, as regards the other issue of whether the appellant/consignor is entitled to compensation as claimed in the claim petition, the Tribunal held the same against the appellant/consignor by holding that there is no merit as regards the contention of the appellant/consignor in seeking a refund on the additional freight and the respondent authorities cannot be faulted for their action for levying additional freight. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the appellant/consignor is not entitled to any refund/compensation as prayed for. Situated thus, the present appeal has been preferred. 5] Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence and erred in rejecting the claim despite the proof of the fact that the indent for dispatching the subject consignment through BCN wagons was placed on 25.08.2015, and upon such indent being placed, the railway authorities calculated the rate under the 'train load' rate, which is evident from the forwarding notes and money receipt exhibited before the Tribunal. She further submits that admittedly the circular applicable as on 25.08.2015 is that of 05.06.2015, under which the 'train load' rate is leviable for BCN wagons. She further submits that the subsequent corrigendum dated 18.09.2015, which came into effect on 28.09.2015, whereby 'train load' rates were no longer made leviable for BCN wagons, cannot be made applicable to the subject consignment, as the indent for the same was placed prior to 28.09.2015. She fairly concedes that post 28.09.2015, i.e., the date on which the corrigendum dated 18.09.2015 came into effect, the 'wagon load' rate shall be applicable in the case of BCN wagons. She fairly concedes that post 28.09.2015, i.e., the date on which the corrigendum dated 18.09.2015 came into effect, the 'wagon load' rate shall be applicable in the case of BCN wagons. She however, submits that upon registration of the indent and payment of initial registration charges, a concluded contract of carriage came into being, and hence, the rate prevalent on the date of indent ought to govern the transaction. She further submits that the sudden and retrospective application of the said corrigendum is violative of the principle of natural justice. She further submits that once the freight has been charged, subsequently the railway authorities cannot recalculate the freight and collect a higher rate. In support of her submission, she relies upon the following decisions: - (i) Union of India & Ors., v. M/S Arihant International Ltd ., in WA No. 328/2012 , on 04.12.2012 (Division bench of this court) (ii) Union of India v. Manju Devi Jain , in MFA No. 50/2013 , on 24.05.2013 (Coordinate bench of this court) 5.1] She further submits that since the appellant/consignor has paid the freight calculated as collected initially by the railway authorities on 25.08.2015, the subsequent levy of additional freight is hit by the doctrine of legitimate expectation. In support of her aforesaid submission, she relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society and Ors., v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 477. 6] Per contra, Ms. K. Phukan, learned CGC, supported the judgment & order of the Tribunal and submitted that the findings are based on proper appreciation of the evidence. She further submits that no contract arises till the goods are actually tendered, the forwarding note executed, and the railway receipt issued. She further submits that since the booking was accepted only on 01.09.2015, the rate prevalent on that date was correctly applied in terms of the provision of the Railway Act. 7] I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the material available on record. I have also duly considered the case laws cited at the bar. 7] I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the material available on record. I have also duly considered the case laws cited at the bar. 8] The core controversy raised in this appeal centers around the stage at which a binding contract of carriage comes into existence between a consignor and the railway administration and, consequently, the determination of the rate of freight applicable thereto. Hence, the issue that arises for determination is whether mere registration of an indent for wagons constitutes a concluded contract of carriage between the consignor and the railway administration prior to actual booking and acceptance of such goods, and if not, whether the railway administration is entitled to apply or recalculate the rate prevailing at the time of acceptance and booking of the goods, rather than that existing on the date of registration of indent. 9] It appears from the materials placed on record that the appellant/consignor in the normal course of its business had placed an indent with the railway administration on 25.08.2015 for the supply of the 42 wagons to deliver the subject consignment to two destinations in question through BCN wagons. The appellant/consignor accordingly on 25.08.2015 paid an amount of Rs. 52,100/- towards wagon registration charges at the Chirai railway booking station. It further appears from the forwarding note executed by the consignor on 25.08.2015 that the said 42 wagons were registered under the classification of 'two-point destination terminals' or 'two-point rake (covered wagons)' in terms of the railway board's regular circular dated 05.06.2015 through BCN wagons, whereunder 'train load' is applicable thereof. It appears that thereafter, the appellant/consignor, while processing the booking of the subject consignment at the Chirai railway booking station on 30.09.2015 deposited Rs. 55,08,341/- as freight as per the 'train load' rate. However, the system at the Chirai railway booking station did not accept the same inasmuch as the government, after reviewing the earlier rates prescribed for two-point combination etc., prescribed under the aforesaid circular dated 05.06.2015, revised such rates vide corrigendum dated 18.09.2015, which came into effect on 28.09.2015, and the 'train load' rates for two-point rake would only apply to BCNHL wagons and not to BCN wagons as on 30.09.2015. The rate for two-point rake as applicable as on 30.09.2015 to BCN wagons is under the 'wagon load' rate. The rate for two-point rake as applicable as on 30.09.2015 to BCN wagons is under the 'wagon load' rate. Hence, for any transportation of BCN wagons post 28.09.2015, the rate applied is 'wagon load'. It appears that subsequently, the railway administration recalculated the freight as per 'wagon load' and upon such recalculation an amount of Rs. 27,54,222/- was due for completing the transaction in question. It appears that the appellant/consignor accordingly on 01.10.2015 deposited the additional freight, i.e., Rs. 27,54,222/- vide money receipt No. 542025, and the subject consignment departed on that date itself from Cherai railway station to the booked destinations Harmati and Dekargaon. It further appears that upon such deposit of the additional freight, the railway administration issued the railway receipt for the subject consignment to the appellant/consignor on 01.10.2015. 10] Before examining the rival submissions, it is apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of the 1989 Act. The following definitions, as stipulated under Section 2 of the 1989 Act, which are relevant in the context of the lis in hand, read as under: - “ 2. Definitions .—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- (2) “carriage” means the carriage of passengers or goods by a railway administration; ……. (4) “classification” means the classification of commodities made under section 31 for the purpose of determining the rates to be charged for carriage of such commodities; (5) “class rates” means the rate fixed for a class of commodity in the classification; …… …… (8) “consignee” means the person named as consignee in a railway receipt; (9) “consignment” means goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage; (10) “consignor” means the person, named in a railway receipt as consignor, by whom or on whose behalf goods covered by the railway receipt are entrusted to a railway administration for carriage; …… …… (14) “fare” means the charge levied for the carriage of passengers; …….. (16) “forwarding note” means the document executed under section 64; (17) “freight” means the charge levied for the carriage of goods including transhipment charges, if any; …… (33) “railway receipt” means the receipt issued under section 65; …….. …….. (16) “forwarding note” means the document executed under section 64; (17) “freight” means the charge levied for the carriage of goods including transhipment charges, if any; …… (33) “railway receipt” means the receipt issued under section 65; …….. …….. (35) “rate” includes any fare, freight or any other charge for the carriage of any passenger or goods;” 11] Reading of the aforesaid definition clause, it is apparent that carriage under Section 2(2) is defined as the carriage of passengers or goods by a railway administration, and under Section 2(9), consignment means goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage. Further, Section 2(10) defines “consignor” as the person by whom such goods are entrusted and in whose name the railway receipt is issued. Furthermore, Section 2(33) defines railway receipt as the receipt issued under Section 65 of the Act. Furthermore, under Section 2(35), rate includes any freight or other charge for the carriage of goods. 12] Chapter VI of the 1989 Act deals with fixation of rates, whereunder Sections 30 , 31, and 32 of the 1989 Act the Central Government or the railway administration is empowered to fix rates, classify commodities, and determine class rates for various goods. 12.1] Section 30 of the 1989 Act reads as under: - “30. Power to fix rates .—(1) The Central Government may, from time to time, by general or special order fix, for the carriage of passengers and goods, rates for the whole or any part of the railway and different rates may be fixed for different classes of goods and specify in such order the conditions subject to which such rates shall apply. (2) The Central Government may, by a like order, fix the rates of any other charges incidental to or connected with such carriage including demurrage and wharfage for the whole or any part of the railway and specify in the order the conditions subject to which such rates shall apply.” 12.2] Section 31 of the 1989 Act, read as under – “ 31. Power to classify commodities or alter rates .—The Central Government shall have power to— (a) classify or reclassify any commodity for the purpose of determining the rates to be charged for the carriage of such commodities; and (b) increase or reduce the class rates and other charges.” 12.3] Section 32 of the 1989 Act, reads as under:- “ 32. Power to classify commodities or alter rates .—The Central Government shall have power to— (a) classify or reclassify any commodity for the purpose of determining the rates to be charged for the carriage of such commodities; and (b) increase or reduce the class rates and other charges.” 12.3] Section 32 of the 1989 Act, reads as under:- “ 32. Power of railway administration to charge certain rates .—Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, a railway administration may, in respect of the carriage of any commodity and subject to such conditions as may be specified,— (a) quote a station to station rate; (b) increase or reduce or cancel, after due notice in the manner determined by the Central Government, a station to station rate, not being a station to station rate introduced in compliance with an order made by the Tribunal; (c) withdraw, alter or amend the conditions attached to a station to station rate other than conditions introduced in compliance with an order made by the Tribunal; and (d) charge any lump sum rate.” 12.4] Reading the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that the central government and/or the railway administration is empowered and authorized to classify and reclassify rates and other charges, and such rates and classifications may be revised or altered from time to time. 13] Chapter IX of the 1989 Act deals with the carriage of goods. Section 61 of the 1989 Act provides maintenance of the rate book, etc., for the carriage of goods, which reads as under:- “61. Maintenance of rate -books, etc., for carriage of goods .—Every railway administration shall maintain, at each station and at such other places where goods are received for carriage, the rate-books or other documents which shall contain the rate authorised for the carriage of goods from one station to another and make them available for the reference of any person during all reasonable hours without payment of any fee.” 13.1] Section 62 of the 1989 Act, provides for the condition of receiving such goods, which reads as under: “62. Conditions for receiving, etc., of goods.— ( 1) A railway administration may impose conditions, not inconsistent with this Act or any rules made thereunder, with respect to the receiving, forwarding, carrying or delivering of any goods.” 13.2] Section 63 of the 1989 Act further provides that where any goods are entrusted to any railway administration for carriage, except where the owner's risk rate is applicable in respect of such goods, they be at the railway risk rate, and in the event that no rate is obtained, the goods shall be deemed to have been entrusted at owner's risk rate. 13.3] Section 64 of the 1989 Act provides that where goods have been entrusted to a railway administration for carriage, such person entrusting shall execute a forwarding note, which reads as under: - “64. Forwarding note .—(1) Every person entrusting any goods to a railway administration for carriage shall execute a forwarding note in such form as may be specified by the Central Government: Provided that no forwarding note shall be executed in the case of such goods as may be prescribed. (2) The consignor shall be responsible for the correctness of the particulars furnished by him in the forwarding note. (3) The consignor shall indemnify the railway administration against any damage suffered by it by reason of the incorrectness or incompleteness of the particulars in the forwarding note.” 13.4] Section 65 of the 1989 Act provides that after the goods are loaded and upon acceptance of the same, the railway administration issues a railway receipt, which reads as under: - “ 65. Railway receipt .—(1) A railway administration shall,— (a) in a case where the goods are to be loaded by a person entrusting such goods, on the completion of such loading; or (b) in any other case, on the acceptance of the goods by it, issue a railway receipt in such form as may be specified by the Central Government. Railway receipt .—(1) A railway administration shall,— (a) in a case where the goods are to be loaded by a person entrusting such goods, on the completion of such loading; or (b) in any other case, on the acceptance of the goods by it, issue a railway receipt in such form as may be specified by the Central Government. (2) A railway receipt shall be prima facie evidence of the weight and the number of packages stated therein: Provided that in the case of a consignment in wagon-load or train-load and the weight or the number of packages is not checked by a railway servant authorised in this behalf, and a statement to that effect is recorded in such railway receipt by him, the burden of proving the weight or, as the case may be, the number of packages stated therein, shall lie on the consignor, the consignee or the endorsee.” 14] Now turning to issue no. 1, it is apparent from reading the aforesaid provision of law that the scheme of Sections 61 to 65 of the 1989 Act makes it explicit that the process of carriage commences only when the goods are actually tendered and accepted by the railway administration. The consignor must execute a forwarding note under Section 64 of the 1989 Act, and upon acceptance of the same by the railway administration, the railway administration issues a railway receipt under Section 65 of the 1989 Act, which constitutes conclusive evidence of entrustment and the terms of the contract. Hence, a mere registration of indent, though it expresses an intention to transport goods and reserve wagons, does not amount to tender or acceptance of goods for carriage. It is only preparatory in nature and does not create any enforceable contractual relationship. The essential elements of offer, acceptance, and consideration crystallize only at the stage of booking and issuance of railway receipts. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is answered in the negative. Mere registration of an indent does not create a concluded contract of carriage between the consignor and the railway administration. 15] As regards issue no. The essential elements of offer, acceptance, and consideration crystallize only at the stage of booking and issuance of railway receipts. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is answered in the negative. Mere registration of an indent does not create a concluded contract of carriage between the consignor and the railway administration. 15] As regards issue no. 2, as to whether the rates can be recalculated at the time of booking, as noted above under Sections 30 , 31, and 32 of the 1989 Act, the Central Government/ railway administration is empowered to fix rates and classify commodities; they therefore govern the substantive mechanics of rate fixation and permit revision from time to time. Further rate as per Section 2(35) includes freight amongst others for the carriage of goods. It is clear from the aforesaid provision of law that the statutory power to fix/revise rates implies that rates are not immutable at the indent stage. That apart, as noted above, as per Sections 61 to 65 of the 1989 Act, a contract of carriage is formed only upon goods entrusted being accepted by the railway administration and a railway receipt being issued. Hence, freight becomes payable in relation to the contract of carriage thus formed. It is also apposite at this stage to refer to Sections 76 and 78 of the 1989 Act, which form part of the said 1989 Act's liability and delivery regime. 16] Section 76 of the 1989 Act provides the manner in which the railway administration shall deliver the consignment after being transported to the destination booked, which reads as under: - “76. Surrender of railway receipt.— The railway administration shall deliver the consignment under a railway receipt on the surrender of such railway receipt: Provided that in case the railway receipt is not forthcoming, the consignment may be delivered to the person, entitled in the opinion of the railway administration to receive the goods, in such manner as may be prescribed.” 17] Section 78 of the 1989 Act empowers the railway administration to re-measure, reweigh or reclassify any consignment, and/or re-calculate the freight or other charges and/or correct any other error or collect any amount that may have been omitted to be charged before handing over delivery of the consignment, which reads as under: - “78. Power to measure, weigh, etc.—Notwithstanding anything contained in the railway receipt, the railway administration may, before the delivery of the consignment, have the right to— (i) re-measure, re-weigh or re-classify any consignment; (ii) re-calculate the freight and other charges; and (iii) correct any other error or collect any amount that may have been omitted to be charged.” 18] What transpires reading the aforesaid two provisions is that these sections presuppose that carriage/acceptance has occurred and deal with consequences such as liability for loss/delay and matters connected with delivery and detention. In other words, where the statute or railway rules permit revision or recalculation of freight or additional charges prior to handing over delivery (for instance, to meet differential freight, detention, demurrage, or charges discovered on actual receipt/inspection), Sections 76 and 78 of the 1989 Act empower the railway administration to make such adjustments consistent with the Act and the notified scale of charges. It is therefore clear that once the railway accepts the consignment and the contract is in place, the administration retains statutory powers to determine and, if necessary, adjust the freight or ancillary charges before final delivery of the goods. In view of the above discussion, the legal positions emerging out of these provisions are as follows: (a) Because the contract arises only on acceptance and issuance of the railway receipt, the applicable rate is the one in force at the time of acceptance/booking. (b) Where, on actual handling, classification, inspection, or other statutory process, a different rate or additional charges properly become payable, Sections 76 and 78 (read with the rest of the Act) permit the Railway Administration to make adjustments prior to handing over delivery. Such recalculation must, however, be consistent with statutory procedure, notifications, classifications, and any rules/regulations governing revisions and refunds/claims. (c) The consignor cannot lock in a prior rate simply by registering an indent; the legal right to insist on a particular rate arises only if the contract was accepted on those terms or if the railway expressly agreed in writing to fix the rate at the indent stage. 19] I am thus of the considered view that the railway administration is entitled to apply the rate in force at the time of acceptance/booking. 19] I am thus of the considered view that the railway administration is entitled to apply the rate in force at the time of acceptance/booking. Further, Sections 76 & 78 of the 1989 Act, r/w Sections 30 /31/32 and Sections 61 /65 of the 1989 Act, permit the railway administration to make lawful recalculations of freight or ancillary charges prior to handing over delivery when such recalculation is necessitated by classification, inspection, transshipment, or other statutory factors, provided the recalculation is as per the statutory scheme and is not arbitrary. 20] In short, once the contract of carriage arises only upon booking, the applicable rates must necessarily be that which is in force on the date of acceptance and booking. Thus, the consignor cannot claim the benefit of a prior rate merely on the basis of indent registration, as no binding obligation is created at that stage. Briefly, since freight becomes payable only upon the formation of the contract (i.e., on acceptance of goods), the rate applicable must correspond to that operative on such date. Accordingly, issue no. 2 is also answered in favour of the railway administration. The applicable rate is that prevailing on the date of actual acceptance and booking. 21] In light of the above discussion, this court holds that registration of an indent does not constitute a concluded contract of carriage between the consignor and the Railway Administration. The contract of carriage arises only upon acceptance of the consignment and issuance of the railway receipt under Section 65 of the 1989 Act. The applicable freight or class rate shall be the rate in force on the date of such acceptance and booking, as per Sections 30 to 32 of the 1989 Act. Sections 76 and 78, properly applied, empower the railway administration to make lawful recalculations or adjustments of freight/charges prior to handing over delivery where statutory grounds for such recalculation exist (inspection, classification, differential charges, detention, etc.) subject to statutory safeguards. 22] In the present case, admittedly, the indent for the subject wagons was placed on 25.08.2015, and the booking for the same was done on 30.09.2015, which was accepted on 01.09.2015 by the railway administration by issuance of railway receipts. Hence, the subject contract for carriage concluded on 01.09.2015. 22] In the present case, admittedly, the indent for the subject wagons was placed on 25.08.2015, and the booking for the same was done on 30.09.2015, which was accepted on 01.09.2015 by the railway administration by issuance of railway receipts. Hence, the subject contract for carriage concluded on 01.09.2015. It is further evident that on 30.09.2015, the system at the Chirai Railway Station did not accept the freight deposited by the appellant/consignor at the time of booking, as the same was undervalued, being calculated under the unrevised 'train load' rate inasmuch as, the rate for the BCN wagon prevailing on that date was the 'wagon load' rate as per the revised rate. It was only on 01.10.2015 when the appellant/consignor deposited the additional freight after the same being recalculated under the 'wagon load' rate that the system at Chirai Railway Station accepted it, and a railway receipt was accordingly issued to the appellant/consignor. It is undisputed that as on 30.09.2015, the rates leviable to BCN wagons are under the 'wagon load'. Hence, charging of additional freight by the railway authorities at Chirai railway booking station is in accordance with the prevailing revised rates at the time of booking and acceptance of the same. The same being totally in conformity with the above provision of law, the claim for refund of the subject additional freight is bereft of any merit or substance whatsoever. 23] I am thus of the unhesitant view that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim for refund of the additional freight as sought by the appellant/consignor, and no ground for interference of the same under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is made out. 24] It is worthwhile to mention that the case laws cited by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/consignor being contextual, the same does not fit into the context of the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, the same are of no relevance. 25] In view of the above, the appellant/consignor has thus failed to demonstrate any misapplication of law or perversity warranting interference. Hence, the Tribunal has not committed any error or illegality. Accordingly, the appeal fails. 26] The miscellaneous first appeal is dismissed. The judgment & order stands affirmed. 27] Return the trial court record.