https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266419 Proceedings under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not continue after omission of that rule and Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as no saving clause preserved pending matters. The Tribunal applied Gujarat High Court authority and its own earlier view to hold that fresh action could not be initiated under the omitted provision and that pending proceedings lapsed if not finally concluded by the date of omission. A de novo adjudication passed after the omissions could not revive a proceeding that had ceased to survive in law. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable and the appeals were allowed. en-us Fri, 12 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Oct 2015 20:40:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266419 Proceedings under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not continue after omission of that rule and Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as no saving clause preserved pending matters. The Tribunal applied Gujarat High Court authority and its own earlier view to hold that fresh action could not be initiated under the omitted provision and that pending proceedings lapsed if not finally concluded by the date of omission. A de novo adjudication passed after the omissions could not revive a proceeding that had ceased to survive in law. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable and the appeals were allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266419