Procedural rule omission does not defeat a duty evasion prosecution when the substantive offence remains intact.

Omission of Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, without a saving clause did not invalidate a pending prosecution for evasion of duty under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The substantive offence was the evasion itself, while Rule 56A dealt only with the procedure for availing credit. Its later omission did not erase the alleged default or prevent proof of evasion, so the charge remained legally sustainable and could continue. The High Court was therefore not justified in quashing the prosecution on that ground, and the discharge order was set aside with the trial court's charge restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the omission of Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, without a saving clause, rendered the charge for evasion of duty under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, unsustainable.

Analysis: The charge was for evasion of duty, and the essential ingredient of the offence was the evasion itself. Rule 56A was only a procedural provision governing availing of credit. Its omission did not erase the alleged substantive default or disable the prosecution from proving evasion. The later omission of the rule therefore did not create a legal infirmity in the pending charge, and the High Court was not justified in quashing it on that basis.

Conclusion: The omission of Rule 56A did not bar continuation of the prosecution or invalidate the charge.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's discharge order was set aside, and the trial court's charge was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Omission of a procedural rule governing credit availing does not extinguish a pending prosecution for substantive evasion of duty where the offence itself remains intact.

---