Omission of delegated tax rule cannot sustain pending proceedings absent a saving clause; demand order quashed.

Proceedings initiated under omitted Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be continued or concluded after the rule was omitted without a saving clause. The High Court held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not apply to the omission of a rule, as it covers repeal of Central Acts or Regulations and not deletion of subordinate legislation. The later insertion of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 also did not preserve the pending notice because no express saving provision continued proceedings already begun under the omitted rule. The notice and demand order were therefore quashed as lacking authority of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings initiated by a notice under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be continued and concluded after that rule was omitted, in the absence of any saving clause, by invoking Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 or Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: Rule 10 empowered the department to initiate notice and determine duty within the prescribed time. In the present case, the notice was issued while Rule 10 was in force, but the adjudication under that rule was completed only after its omission. The omission notification contained no saving provision for pending proceedings. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was held inapplicable because it applies to repeals of Central Acts or Regulations and not to omission of a rule. The simultaneous introduction of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 also did not preserve the earlier proceeding, since no express provision continued proceedings already initiated under the omitted rule.

Conclusion: Proceedings under the omitted Rule 10 could not lawfully be continued or concluded after its omission, and the impugned demand order was without authority of law.

Final Conclusion: The notice and the demand order were quashed, and the challenge succeeded on the ground that the department lacked authority to proceed under the omitted rule.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing or quasi-judicial power is created by a rule and that rule is omitted without a saving clause, pending proceedings cannot be continued or concluded under the omitted rule unless the statute expressly preserves them; Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not apply to an omission of a rule.

---