<?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>2003 (6) TMI 26 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46832</link>
    <description>Proceedings to recover short-levied excise duty under Section 11A may continue against the legal representatives of a deceased noticee where the duty liability had already arisen during the noticee&#039;s lifetime. The document states that Section 11A operates against the person chargeable with duty, and that unpaid duty can be enforced against the estate represented by the heirs. It further notes that strict construction of the taxing statute did not bar recovery, because that approach would create an anomalous result by denying recovery of underpaid duty while leaving claims for excess duty intact. The recovery notice against the legal representatives was therefore treated as valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2024 14:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85352" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 26 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46832</link>
      <description>Proceedings to recover short-levied excise duty under Section 11A may continue against the legal representatives of a deceased noticee where the duty liability had already arisen during the noticee&#039;s lifetime. The document states that Section 11A operates against the person chargeable with duty, and that unpaid duty can be enforced against the estate represented by the heirs. It further notes that strict construction of the taxing statute did not bar recovery, because that approach would create an anomalous result by denying recovery of underpaid duty while leaving claims for excess duty intact. The recovery notice against the legal representatives was therefore treated as valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46832</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>