Vested right of appeal survives statutory amendment where revision proceedings began before the change in law.

Revisionary proceedings initiated before the 19.8.2009 amendment to Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 continued under the old provision, and the vested right of appeal that accrued when the lis commenced was held to survive the substitution. The omission of the words "or section 84" from Section 86(1) was treated as consequential and not as a clear legislative intent to extinguish the accrued appellate remedy. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was applied because no contrary intention was shown, so maintainability of the appeal was governed by the law in force when proceedings began.

---

---

Issues: Whether appeals filed against revisionary orders passed by Commissioners of Central Excise after 19.8.2009 under the erstwhile Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 were maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal, and whether the omission of the words and figures "or section 84" from Section 86(1) took away the vested right of appeal.

Analysis: The substitution of Section 84 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 shifted the Commissioner's remedy from revision to appeal, but the Explanation to the new Section 84 preserved revision proceedings already initiated before 19.8.2009 and required them to continue as if the old provision had not been substituted. The right of appeal was held to be a substantive and vested right accruing on commencement of the lis, which in these cases began with the issuance of the revisionary show-cause notice under the old Section 84. Applying the principles governing vested rights of appeal, the law prevailing on the date of institution of the proceedings governed maintainability, and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was held applicable because no contrary legislative intent was shown. The omission in Section 86(1) was treated as consequential and not as an express or implied extinguishment of the accrued appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The appeals were maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal, and the assessees retained the right to challenge the revisionary orders passed after 19.8.2009.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection failed, and the connected stay applications were directed to be listed for disposal on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where revisionary proceedings were instituted before the statutory amendment, the vested right of appeal that accrued on commencement of the lis survives unless the amending legislation clearly manifests an intention to destroy that right.

---