https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43144 The Calcutta High Court considered whether a penalty under Rule 126L(16) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 could survive repeal of Part XIIA and the savings clause in Section 117 of the Gold (Control) Ordinance. Applying the earlier Division Bench view, the Court held that the repeal and savings provision preserved only actions already taken and did not authorise continuation or creation of liability inconsistent with the new Ordinance. The penalty was therefore treated as unsustainable and set aside. en-us Tue, 06 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:23:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43144 The Calcutta High Court considered whether a penalty under Rule 126L(16) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 could survive repeal of Part XIIA and the savings clause in Section 117 of the Gold (Control) Ordinance. Applying the earlier Division Bench view, the Court held that the repeal and savings provision preserved only actions already taken and did not authorise continuation or creation of liability inconsistent with the new Ordinance. The penalty was therefore treated as unsustainable and set aside. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 06 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43144