https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41564 Proceedings initiated under omitted Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be continued or concluded after the rule was omitted without a saving clause. The High Court held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not apply to the omission of a rule, as it covers repeal of Central Acts or Regulations and not deletion of subordinate legislation. The later insertion of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 also did not preserve the pending notice because no express saving provision continued proceedings already begun under the omitted rule. The notice and demand order were therefore quashed as lacking authority of law. en-us Mon, 04 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:01:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41564 Proceedings initiated under omitted Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be continued or concluded after the rule was omitted without a saving clause. The High Court held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not apply to the omission of a rule, as it covers repeal of Central Acts or Regulations and not deletion of subordinate legislation. The later insertion of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 also did not preserve the pending notice because no express saving provision continued proceedings already begun under the omitted rule. The notice and demand order were therefore quashed as lacking authority of law. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41564