https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347863 Omission of Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, without a saving clause did not invalidate a pending prosecution for evasion of duty under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The substantive offence was the evasion itself, while Rule 56A dealt only with the procedure for availing credit. Its later omission did not erase the alleged default or prevent proof of evasion, so the charge remained legally sustainable and could continue. The High Court was therefore not justified in quashing the prosecution on that ground, and the discharge order was set aside with the trial court's charge restored. en-us Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Dec 2017 16:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347863 Omission of Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, without a saving clause did not invalidate a pending prosecution for evasion of duty under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The substantive offence was the evasion itself, while Rule 56A dealt only with the procedure for availing credit. Its later omission did not erase the alleged default or prevent proof of evasion, so the charge remained legally sustainable and could continue. The High Court was therefore not justified in quashing the prosecution on that ground, and the discharge order was set aside with the trial court's charge restored. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347863