https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42901 Proceedings initiated by show cause notices under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not lapse merely because Rule 10 was deleted and Section 11A was substituted. The Court applied Section 6 of the General Clauses Act to hold that pending proceedings were saved unless a contrary intention appeared, and rejected the argument that the absence of an express saving clause deprived the Assistant Collector of jurisdiction. The notices therefore remained valid and could be confirmed despite the repeal of Rule 10. en-us Tue, 25 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:53:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42901 Proceedings initiated by show cause notices under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not lapse merely because Rule 10 was deleted and Section 11A was substituted. The Court applied Section 6 of the General Clauses Act to hold that pending proceedings were saved unless a contrary intention appeared, and rejected the argument that the absence of an express saving clause deprived the Assistant Collector of jurisdiction. The notices therefore remained valid and could be confirmed despite the repeal of Rule 10. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42901