https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190110 A writ court may examine a deduction or recovery under Article 226 where the employer imposes conditions or recovers amounts beyond the contract, even if an arbitration clause exists. In this note, the contract permitted only a penalty for shortfall in production and did not authorise shifting excise duty to the contractor. Excise duty is payable on removal of goods, and Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not justify deduction from the contractor's bill. The impugned excise-duty recovery was therefore held impermissible, the deduction was set aside, and any amount already recovered was directed to be refunded with simple interest if delayed. en-us Wed, 24 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Feb 2017 16:58:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190110 A writ court may examine a deduction or recovery under Article 226 where the employer imposes conditions or recovers amounts beyond the contract, even if an arbitration clause exists. In this note, the contract permitted only a penalty for shortfall in production and did not authorise shifting excise duty to the contractor. Excise duty is payable on removal of goods, and Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not justify deduction from the contractor's bill. The impugned excise-duty recovery was therefore held impermissible, the deduction was set aside, and any amount already recovered was directed to be refunded with simple interest if delayed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190110