Pending excise proceedings survive repeal where Section 6 saves them despite substitution of the governing provision.

Proceedings initiated by show cause notices under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not lapse merely because Rule 10 was deleted and Section 11A was substituted. The Court applied Section 6 of the General Clauses Act to hold that pending proceedings were saved unless a contrary intention appeared, and rejected the argument that the absence of an express saving clause deprived the Assistant Collector of jurisdiction. The notices therefore remained valid and could be confirmed despite the repeal of Rule 10.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings initiated under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 stood terminated on deletion of the rule and substitution by Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, so as to deprive the Assistant Collector of jurisdiction to confirm the show cause notices.

Analysis: The proceedings had been commenced by show cause notices issued under Rule 10 before its deletion. The Court held that the mere deletion of Rule 10 did not bring pending proceedings to an end, because such proceedings were saved by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The contrary contention based on the substitution of Section 11A and the absence of an express saving provision was rejected.

Conclusion: The pending proceedings under Rule 10 survived its deletion, and the Assistant Collector had jurisdiction to make the notices absolute.

---