Omitted rule proceedings lapse without saving clause, and show-cause notices under the deleted excise rule could not survive.

Proceedings initiated under omitted Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules could not continue after the rule was deleted where the amending instrument contained no saving clause. The governing principle applied was that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 does not, by itself, preserve proceedings under an omitted rule in the absence of an express saving provision. Because the omission of Rule 10 in 1980 was not accompanied by any saving language, and the insertion of Section 11A did not save pending matters, the show-cause notice and consequent adjudication under the omitted rule could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings initiated under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules could continue after the rule was omitted, and whether the show-cause notice and consequential adjudication survived in the absence of a saving provision.

Analysis: The notice to show cause had been issued under Rule 10, and the adjudication order followed after Rule 10 had been omitted. The governing principle applied was that where a rule is omitted and the amending instrument contains no saving clause, proceedings under the omitted rule do not continue merely by virtue of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. As the omission of Rule 10 in 1980 was not accompanied by any saving provision, and the enactment inserting Section 11A did not preserve pending proceedings, the initiated proceedings could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The proceedings under the omitted rule lapsed on its omission, and the show-cause notice and impugned adjudication could not stand.

---