Omission of delegated rules does not attract saving under general clauses law, so pending excise proceedings lapse without an express saving clause.

Proceedings under omitted Central Excise Rules 10 and 10A did not continue after those rules were deleted and replaced. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies to repeal of a Central Act or Regulation, not to omission of a rule, even if the rule was made under statutory authority. Because the substituted framework contained no saving clause and the later enactment of Section 11A did not preserve pending actions, proceedings already initiated under the omitted rules lapsed and any order passed in them was without legal effect.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings initiated under Rules 10 and 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could continue after those rules were omitted and replaced, and whether Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applied to save such proceedings.

Analysis: Rules 10 and 10A provided the machinery for recovery of excise duties short-levied, not levied, or erroneously refunded, and the impugned notice was issued while those rules were in force. The governing legal question was whether omission of those rules by notification preserved pending proceedings. The Court held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies only where a Central Act or Regulation is repealed, and not where a rule is omitted. A rule, even though framed under statutory power, remains a rule and cannot be equated with a Central Act or Regulation for the purposes of Section 6. The substituted framework contained no saving clause for pending actions, and neither the notification omitting the old rules nor the later enactment of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 saved proceedings already commenced under the omitted rules. In the absence of any statutory continuation provision, the pending proceeding could not survive the omission.

Conclusion: Proceedings initiated under the omitted Rules 10 and 10A did not survive after their deletion, and the subsequent order passed in such proceedings was without legal effect.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 does not apply to the omission of a rule, and in the absence of an express saving provision, pending proceedings under the omitted rule lapse.

---