General Clauses Act saving provision preserves pending excise demand proceedings after repeal of Rule 10.

Proceedings for short levy initiated under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could continue after the rule was repealed and an identical provision was introduced in Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Bombay HC applied Section 3(51) and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, holding that a rule made under an enactment is saved on repeal where proceedings had already commenced while the rule was in force. Pending demand proceedings were therefore not extinguished, and the challenge to continuation and confirmation of demand failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings initiated under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for short levy could continue after the rule was repealed and Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 came into force.

Analysis: Rule 10 was repealed on the same date on which an identical provision was introduced in Section 11A. The expression "rule" in Section 3(51) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 includes a rule made under an enactment. The saving principle in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 therefore applied to proceedings already commenced while Rule 10 was operative, and the repeal did not extinguish the pending demand proceedings.

Conclusion: The demand proceedings were validly continued after repeal of Rule 10, and the challenge to the confirmation of demand failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a rule made under an enactment is repealed and simultaneously replaced by an identical provision, pending proceedings initiated under the repealed rule are saved by the General Clauses Act and may continue to conclusion.

---