Omission without saving clause ends pending excise proceedings; Tribunal set aside demand and penalty as unsustainable.

Proceedings under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules and Section 3A of the Central Excise Act could not be continued after those provisions were omitted without a saving clause, because incomplete matters do not survive the omission of the charging or procedural basis. The Tribunal applied its earlier principle that where reassessment and final adjudication occur only after the omission, pending proceedings lose legal support. On that reasoning, the demand and penalty founded on pre-omission show cause notices were held unsustainable, and the impugned orders were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings initiated under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be continued and culminate in a valid demand and penalty after the omission of the rule and Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without any saving clause.

Analysis: The demand arose from show cause notices issued for a period prior to 1 March 2001 under the compounded levy framework. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision applying the principle that when a substantive charging or procedural provision is omitted without a saving clause, proceedings not finally concluded before the omission do not survive. Since the reassessment and final orders were completed long after the omission of Rule 96ZQ and Section 3A, the pending proceedings could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The proceedings were held not sustainable and the impugned orders were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---