Omission of a fiscal provision without saving clause ends pending capacity-fixation proceedings not finally concluded before omission.

Omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, without any saving clause, meant that pending capacity-fixation proceedings under Section 3A and Rule 96ZO did not survive unless finally concluded before the omission. The Tribunal applied the principle that omission is distinct from repeal, but liabilities and proceedings founded solely on an omitted fiscal provision lapse when no saving provision preserves them. As the annual production capacity determination had not attained finality before omission, the later adjudication could not be sustained, and the impugned proceedings were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings initiated for fixation of annual production capacity under Section 3A and Rule 96ZO survived after omission of Section 3A without a saving clause.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the view that omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, without any saving provision, prevented pending proceedings from continuing where final determination had not been completed before the omission. It relied on the principle that omission is distinct from repeal and that, in the absence of a saving clause, liabilities and proceedings founded only on the omitted provision do not survive. On the facts, the capacity-fixation proceedings had not attained finality before omission of the provision, and the later adjudication could not sustain them.

Conclusion: The proceedings for fixation of capacity had lapsed and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disputed capacity-fixation action could not be continued after omission of the governing provision, so the impugned proceedings were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a saving clause, proceedings founded on an omitted fiscal provision do not survive if they were not finally concluded before the omission.

---