Jurisdiction lapses after omission of the charging provision, and annual capacity redetermination cannot stand without a surviving statutory basis.

Omission of the parent charging provision without a saving clause deprived the adjudicating authority of jurisdiction to pass a later de novo order redetermining annual production capacity. The authority could not rely on a remand order alone once the statutory source of power had disappeared, and pending proceedings could not continue after unconditional omission of the provision. The annual capacity determination rules used for the impugned order were also noted to have been struck down as ultra vires, reinforcing that the order lacked a valid legal foundation and could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to pass the de novo order determining annual capacity of production after Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 had been omitted without a saving clause, and whether the impugned order could be sustained under the annual capacity determination rules.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the effect of omission of the parent charging provision and the validity of action taken under the delegated rules after such omission. The final de novo order was passed in 2004, long after omission of Section 3A by the Finance Act, 2001. The reasoning accepted that pending proceedings cannot continue where the source of power has been unconditionally omitted without a saving clause, and that the adjudicating authority could not derive jurisdiction from a remand order alone once the statutory foundation had disappeared. It was also noted that the very rule framework used for determining annual capacity had been struck down as ultra vires in the cited line of authority, reinforcing the absence of jurisdiction on the date of the impugned order.

Conclusion: The Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to pass the re-determination order, and the impugned order could not be sustained.

---