https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=508 Omission of the parent charging provision for the compounded capacity-based excise scheme under Rule 96ZO without an express saving clause meant the subordinate rule and pending proceedings founded on it could not continue. The general saving provision in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was treated as inapplicable to such an omission, and Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not preserve demands where the charging provision itself had ceased to exist. As a result, proceedings for demand, interest and penalty under the omitted scheme were not maintainable and the impugned adjudication was liable to be set aside. en-us Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=508 Omission of the parent charging provision for the compounded capacity-based excise scheme under Rule 96ZO without an express saving clause meant the subordinate rule and pending proceedings founded on it could not continue. The general saving provision in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was treated as inapplicable to such an omission, and Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not preserve demands where the charging provision itself had ceased to exist. As a result, proceedings for demand, interest and penalty under the omitted scheme were not maintainable and the impugned adjudication was liable to be set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=508