https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120891 The omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act raised uncertainty over the continued validity of proceedings under the compounded levy scheme for non-alloy steel products. The analysis considered whether, in the absence of an express saving clause, departmental actions could continue by treating omission as equivalent to repeal for the purposes of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act. In view of conflicting prior authority on the effect of omission and the reach of saving provisions, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench for authoritative determination. en-us Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:25:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120891 The omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act raised uncertainty over the continued validity of proceedings under the compounded levy scheme for non-alloy steel products. The analysis considered whether, in the absence of an express saving clause, departmental actions could continue by treating omission as equivalent to repeal for the purposes of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act. In view of conflicting prior authority on the effect of omission and the reach of saving provisions, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench for authoritative determination. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120891