https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43276 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the excise duty demands were barred by limitation as they were made beyond the specified period. The court issued a writ of mandamus preventing enforcement of the demand against the petitioner or his assets. It was held that the petitioner, as a legal representative, was not liable for the arrears of excise duty from the deceased licensee's business activities. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs. en-us Thu, 12 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:53:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43276 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the excise duty demands were barred by limitation as they were made beyond the specified period. The court issued a writ of mandamus preventing enforcement of the demand against the petitioner or his assets. It was held that the petitioner, as a legal representative, was not liable for the arrears of excise duty from the deceased licensee's business activities. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43276