Omitted statutory rule cannot sustain pending excise proceedings without a saving clause or deeming fiction.

A show-cause notice issued under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules could not survive after that rule was omitted with effect from 17 November 1980, because the amending legislation contained no saving or deeming provision preserving pending proceedings. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not apply to an omission of a rule, so the statutory basis for the notice ceased to exist and a later departmental communication could not validly continue the original quasi-judicial proceeding. The impugned demand proceedings founded on the omitted rule were therefore invalid and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a show-cause notice issued under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules survived after omission of that rule and could be acted upon after Section 11A of the Central Excise Act came into force.

Analysis: Rule 10 was omitted by notification with effect from 17 November 1980. Section 11A was simultaneously brought into force, but the amending legislation did not create any saving or deeming provision to continue proceedings already initiated under the omitted rule. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not apply to an omission of a rule, and therefore the statutory foundation for the notice ceased to exist. The later departmental communication could not be treated as a valid continuation of the original quasi-judicial proceeding.

Conclusion: The notice issued under Rule 10 did not survive its omission and could not be proceeded with; the challenge was accepted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand proceedings based on the omitted rule were invalid and liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory rule creating the basis of proceedings is omitted without a saving clause or deeming fiction, pending proceedings under that rule lapse and cannot be continued under the General Clauses Act merely because a corresponding provision is later introduced.

---