https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43243 Proceedings for recovery of short-levied excise duty were treated as continuing validly after substitution of Rule 10 because the enforcement machinery remained substantially the same. The earlier and substituted provisions both empowered the proper officer to issue notice and the Assistant Collector to determine duty, with the main change being the limitation period for notice. The later omission of the substituted rule and introduction of Section 11A did not extinguish pending recovery actions, and the absence of an express saving clause did not defeat them. The continuity approach was accepted, so pending notices and proceedings were maintainable. en-us Fri, 07 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:03:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43243 Proceedings for recovery of short-levied excise duty were treated as continuing validly after substitution of Rule 10 because the enforcement machinery remained substantially the same. The earlier and substituted provisions both empowered the proper officer to issue notice and the Assistant Collector to determine duty, with the main change being the limitation period for notice. The later omission of the substituted rule and introduction of Section 11A did not extinguish pending recovery actions, and the absence of an express saving clause did not defeat them. The continuity approach was accepted, so pending notices and proceedings were maintainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43243