Survival of excise proceedings after repeal: prior adjudication orders and saving provisions preserved enforcement of the demand.

Proceedings begun by show cause notices under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules were held to survive deletion of that rule because the notices had already merged into final adjudication orders before the deletion took effect. Once the Assistant Collector had passed those orders, there were no pending proceedings to be extinguished by the rule's deletion. The court further held that, even otherwise, the continuation and enforcement of the proceedings were saved by the General Clauses Act, and the later substitution of Section 11A did not prevent enforcement of orders already made. The challenge to continuance of the demand proceedings therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings initiated by show cause notices under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules survived the deletion of that rule and could be continued and enforced.

Analysis: The show cause notices had already merged in the adjudication orders of the Assistant Collector before Rule 10 was deleted. Once those notices had culminated in final orders, they were no longer pending proceedings on the date of deletion. In any event, the deletion of Rule 10 did not extinguish the proceedings, because their continuation was saved by the General Clauses Act and the later substitution of Section 11A did not prevent enforcement of the orders already made.

Conclusion: The challenge to the continuance and enforcement of the proceedings failed, and the contention that the notices could not survive after deletion of Rule 10 was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed and the demand proceedings were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings initiated under a repealed or deleted provision may continue where they had already merged into final adjudication orders, and, in any event, such proceedings are preserved by the saving effect of the General Clauses Act.

---