<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1962 (2) TMI 78 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168857</link>
    <description>Coal cess litigation turned on limitation, post-repeal validity, and statutory allocation of liability. The special limitation period for Central Government suits applied, and the claim was filed within time because the right to sue arose on demand and refusal. The levy and recovery of coal cess remained valid after repeal of the ordinance and commencement of the Constitution, as accrued liabilities and remedies were saved, and the impost retained its character as an excise duty despite collection through freight surcharge. Where freight was payable at destination, the governing rules made the consignee liable, so liability could not be fastened on the consignor contrary to the statutory collection scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=380198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (2) TMI 78 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168857</link>
      <description>Coal cess litigation turned on limitation, post-repeal validity, and statutory allocation of liability. The special limitation period for Central Government suits applied, and the claim was filed within time because the right to sue arose on demand and refusal. The levy and recovery of coal cess remained valid after repeal of the ordinance and commencement of the Constitution, as accrued liabilities and remedies were saved, and the impost retained its character as an excise duty despite collection through freight surcharge. Where freight was payable at destination, the governing rules made the consignee liable, so liability could not be fastened on the consignor contrary to the statutory collection scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168857</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>