Repeal does not end accrued liability or pending proceedings when savings law preserves the gold-control action.

Pending gold-control proceedings survived repeal of the Gold (Control) Act because the show cause action had already been initiated and liability had accrued before repeal. Applying section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the repeal did not extinguish previous operation, accrued liability, or pending proceedings in the absence of a contrary legislative intention. A subsequent change in the designation of the adjudicating officer from Collector to Commissioner was treated as a change in nomenclature only and did not deprive the matter of a competent forum. The proceedings remained maintainable against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause proceedings initiated under the Defence of India Rules and continued under the Gold (Control) Act survived the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act by the Gold (Control) Repeal Act, 1990. (ii) Whether change in the designation of the adjudicating officers from Collector of Central Excise and Customs to Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs deprived the pending matter of a competent adjudicating authority.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause proceedings initiated under the Defence of India Rules and continued under the Gold (Control) Act survived the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act by the Gold (Control) Repeal Act, 1990.

Analysis: The proceeding had already been set in motion by a show cause notice for alleged contravention of the gold control regime, and the liability was treated as having accrued before repeal. On the application of the general rule in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, repeal does not affect previous operation, accrued liability, or pending legal proceedings unless a different intention appears. The repeal of the Gold (Control) Act did not disclose any contrary intention sufficient to extinguish pending proceedings already initiated under the earlier regime.

Conclusion: The proceeding survived the repeal and could validly continue; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether change in the designation of the adjudicating officers from Collector of Central Excise and Customs to Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs deprived the pending matter of a competent adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The change was treated as a change in nomenclature only. Since the proceeding remained alive under the saving provision, the mere re-designation of the office did not nullify the authority to adjudicate pending matters. A change of forum or title does not defeat pending proceedings where the law preserves them and no contrary intention is shown.

Conclusion: The pending matter remained triable by the re-designated authority; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the pending gold-control proceedings were held to be maintainable despite repeal and re-designation of the adjudicating authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a proceeding has already been initiated and liability has accrued under a repealed enactment, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 preserves the proceeding and any merely consequential change in the designation of the adjudicating authority does not terminate that jurisdiction in the absence of a contrary legislative intention.

---