Savings clause preserves accrued excise liability despite omission of the charging and rule provisions.

Liabilities incurred under omitted excise provisions were held to survive because the savings clause in Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 preserves obligations and liabilities notwithstanding omission of Section 3A and Rules 96ZO and 96ZP. The Madras HC followed an earlier Division Bench ruling that had refused identical relief in the same context, and rejected the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order on both maintainability and merits. The omission of a taxing provision did not extinguish accrued liability where the statute expressly continued such obligations by operation of the saving provision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could succeed in challenging the order in view of the earlier decision holding that liabilities incurred under omitted excise provisions survive by virtue of the savings provision.

Analysis: The relief was sought on the basis that Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules 96ZO and 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had been omitted. The Court followed the earlier Division Bench view that Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, inserted by Section 131 of the Finance Act, 2001, preserves obligations and liabilities incurred under the omitted provisions notwithstanding their omission. The Court also noted that the earlier decision had already declined similar relief in identical circumstances.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the petitioner's contention and failed on merits.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned order was rejected, and the liability under the omitted excise provisions was treated as continuing by operation of the savings provision.

Ratio Decidendi: Omission of a taxing provision does not extinguish liabilities already incurred where the statute contains a savings clause preserving such obligations.

---