Omission of Central Excise provisions without a saving clause bars continuation of pending proceedings and abatement claims.

Omission of Rules 96ZQ, 96ZP and 96ZO from the Central Excise Rules, 1944, together with omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, meant that no fresh action could be initiated under those provisions. In the absence of any saving clause, pending proceedings not concluded before the omission could not be continued or completed. Applying that binding position, the Tribunal treated the abatement claim under Rule 96ZQ(7) as no longer maintainable and dismissed the appeal as abated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claim of abatement under Rule 96ZQ(7) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could survive and be entertained after omission of the rule and Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The binding High Court ruling held that once Rules 96ZQ, 96ZP and 96ZO were omitted from the statute book, no fresh action could be initiated under them. It further held that after omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and in the absence of any saving clause, pending proceedings that had not been concluded before the omission could not be continued or concluded. The Tribunal applied that declared position and treated the controversy as no longer surviving.

Conclusion: The abatement claim could not be sustained and the appeal stood dismissed as abated.

---