Omitted fiscal provisions cannot sustain de novo adjudication after repeal without a saving clause.

Proceedings initiated under the compounded levy regime could not be validly completed after Section 3A and Rule 96ZP were omitted, because no saving clause preserved pending adjudications. The Tribunal applied the principle that, where an enabling provision and its related rule stand omitted without transitional protection, unfinished proceedings lapse and cannot culminate in a valid final order. As the de novo adjudication was completed after the omission date, the demand and penalty were not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings initiated under Section 3A and Rule 96ZP could survive and be sustained when the de novo adjudication was completed after their omission without any saving clause.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the effect of omission of the compounded levy provisions and the related rule. The adjudication in the present matter was completed in 2006, well after the omission of Section 3A and Rule 96ZP. The Tribunal followed the view that where the enabling provision and the rule stood omitted without a saving clause, pending proceedings not concluded by the date of omission could not continue to a valid final order. Since the de novo proceedings were concluded after the omission, the demand and penalty could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue; the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Final Conclusion: Proceedings under the omitted compounded levy provisions could not be validly completed in de novo adjudication after the omission date in the absence of saving protection, so the demand and penalty failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a saving clause, proceedings under an omitted fiscal provision lapse if they are not concluded before the omission takes effect.

---