Repeal and saving clauses in Modvat proceedings raise doubt over whether pending appeals survive after rule repeal.

Proceedings initiated under the repealed Modvat rules were considered in light of the absence of a saving clause, with prior authority suggesting that such proceedings would lapse if no saving could be found in the parent Act or Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The Tribunal noted, however, that the demand here arose under Rule 57U read with Section 11A, which continued to operate, and that the earlier ruling had not addressed whether an appeal against such action would also lapse. Because of this doubt, the Tribunal did not finally decide the effect of repeal on the appeal and referred the issue for examination by a Larger Bench.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings initiated under the repealed Modvat rule and pending on the date of repeal survived in the absence of a saving clause, and whether the present appeal could be treated as having lapsed.

Analysis: The appeal concerned a duty demand raised under Rule 57U of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted the prior view that, where Modvat rules were repealed without any saving provision and no saving could be traced either in the parent Act or in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, proceedings initiated under the old rules would lapse. At the same time, it was observed that the present demand was not under Rule 57U alone but under that rule read with Section 11A, which remained in force, and that the question whether an appeal challenging such action would also lapse had not been addressed in the earlier ruling. The Tribunal therefore expressed doubt about the correctness of the earlier view and considered the issue fit for examination by a Larger Bench.

Conclusion: The question of the effect of repeal on the present appeal was not finally decided and was referred for consideration by a Larger Bench.

---