https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241576 Omission of Rule 96ZO(3) did not extinguish pending abatement proceedings because Section 38A of the Central Excise Act preserves the prior operation of amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded rules and protects rights, liabilities and proceedings arising under them. On that basis, proceedings already initiated under the omitted rule remained valid, and the challenge based solely on omission failed. The separate factual objection of non-compliance with the rule was also not accepted, so the abatement claim did not succeed. en-us Fri, 20 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241576 Omission of Rule 96ZO(3) did not extinguish pending abatement proceedings because Section 38A of the Central Excise Act preserves the prior operation of amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded rules and protects rights, liabilities and proceedings arising under them. On that basis, proceedings already initiated under the omitted rule remained valid, and the challenge based solely on omission failed. The separate factual objection of non-compliance with the rule was also not accepted, so the abatement claim did not succeed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241576