https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400322 In Section 37 review of a Section 34 order, the court held that interference with an arbitral award is limited to manifest error, patent illegality, or conflict with public policy, and will not follow where the tribunal's contractual interpretation is a plausible view. Applying that standard, the tribunal's reading of the price schedule and minimum guaranteed CENVAT credit clause was upheld: any shortfall was recoverable from the gross contract price, not the net contract price. The tribunal's construction of the contract as including CST within the agreed pricing also supported reimbursement for CST paid by subcontractors or vendors. The award, as modified by the Single Judge, was left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 03 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Nov 2020 18:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400322 In Section 37 review of a Section 34 order, the court held that interference with an arbitral award is limited to manifest error, patent illegality, or conflict with public policy, and will not follow where the tribunal's contractual interpretation is a plausible view. Applying that standard, the tribunal's reading of the price schedule and minimum guaranteed CENVAT credit clause was upheld: any shortfall was recoverable from the gross contract price, not the net contract price. The tribunal's construction of the contract as including CST within the agreed pricing also supported reimbursement for CST paid by subcontractors or vendors. The award, as modified by the Single Judge, was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400322