Omitted excise rule without saving clause barred recovery proceedings and rendered the impugned notice ultra vires.

Recovery proceedings for additional excise duty could not be sustained once the Central Excise Rule conferring the recovery power had been omitted without any express saving clause. The court held that, in the absence of a saving provision, the respondents had no authority to continue action under the omitted rule, and proceedings based on it were ultra vires. The impugned notice and consequential order were therefore quashed, and the petition was allowed on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings for recovery of additional excise duty could be sustained after the relevant Central Excise Rule had been omitted without any express saving, and whether the impugned notice and consequential order were liable to be quashed as ultra vires.

Analysis: The petition was decided on the same legal point earlier considered in a connected matter. The governing rule under the Central Excise Rules had already been omitted, and no express saving preserved the authority to continue proceedings under that rule. In such a situation, the statutory power to proceed could not be exercised, and the respondents could not rely on the omitted rule to sustain recovery action under the Khadi and other Handloom Industries Development (Additional Excise Duty on Cloth) Act, 1953.

Conclusion: The impugned proceedings were held to be without authority of law and were quashed, with the petition allowed on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The decision establishes that once the enabling excise rule stood omitted without saving, recovery proceedings based on that rule could not continue and were liable to be struck down.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the rule conferring recovery power has been omitted and no saving clause preserves pending or future action, proceedings founded on that rule become unsustainable and ultra vires.

---