Omitted excise rules cannot support fresh penalty proceedings, and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not save them.

Penalty proceedings cannot be initiated under Rules 32 and 40 of the Central Excise Rules after those rules have been omitted, unless a saving clause preserves prior liability. Omission of a rule is not treated like repeal of an Act or Regulation for the purpose of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. As the notice was issued after the rules ceased to exist and no saving provision protected past contraventions, Section 6 did not preserve the proceedings. The penalty action was therefore invalid in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalties could validly be imposed on the basis of Rules 32 and 40 of the Central Excise Rules after those rules had been omitted, and whether Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 saved the proceedings.

Analysis: The proceedings were initiated after the omission of the relevant rules, and no saving clause was introduced preserving liability for past acts or omissions. The omission of a rule is not to be equated with a repeal of an Act or Regulation for the purpose of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The settled principle applied was that proceedings cannot be newly initiated under a provision that has ceased to exist, and the fact that the alleged contravention occurred earlier does not validate a notice issued after the omission.

Conclusion: The penalty proceedings were invalid in law, and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not save them.

---