Repeal with saving preserves appeal rights and earlier fee rules for matters arising under the repealed foreign exchange law.

On repeal with saving, accrued rights, pending remedies and liabilities under the earlier foreign exchange law survived, unless the later statute showed a contrary intention. The vested right of appeal in matters arising under the repealed law was preserved, although the appellate forum was substituted. Section 24 of the General Clauses Act also continued subordinate legislation made under the repealed law so far as it was not inconsistent with the re-enacted statute. As a result, appeals from adjudication orders under the repealed enactment remained subject to the earlier appeal-fee regime, and the higher fee under the new rules applied only to appeals under the later enactment.

---

---

Issues: Whether appeals against adjudication orders passed under the repealed foreign exchange law, but filed after repeal, attracted the fee prescribed under the repealed rules or the higher fee under the new rules; and whether the repeal and saving provisions preserved the earlier appellate procedure and fee structure.

Analysis: The saving provision in the later enactment, read with section 6 of the General Clauses Act, preserved liabilities, proceedings and remedies arising under the repealed law unless a contrary intention appeared. The court held that the repeal did not destroy the vested right of appeal in matters arising under the earlier enactment; it only substituted the appellate forum. Section 24 of the General Clauses Act likewise continued subordinate legislation made under the repealed law so long as it was not inconsistent with the re-enacted statute. The fee rule under the later regime applied to appeals under the later enactment, while appeals arising from orders under the repealed enactment continued to be governed by the earlier fee rule.

Conclusion: Appeals against adjudication orders passed under the repealed law remained governed by the repealed law's appeal-fee regime, and the later fee rule did not apply to such appeals.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the higher court fee failed, and the petitioners were entitled to have their appeals treated under the earlier procedural and fee provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: On repeal with saving, accrued rights and pending remedies survive, and a mere change of appellate forum does not, by implication, impose more onerous procedural conditions unless the later statute clearly manifests that intention.

---