https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44084 Substitution or omission of recovery rules under the Central Excise framework did not extinguish duty liability that had already arisen under the parent Act on manufacture or production of goods. The Full Bench treated substituted Rules 10 and 10A, and later omitted Rule 10, as changes to machinery and procedure only, not to the substantive charging provision. Pending notices and recovery actions were therefore not discharged by the absence of an express saving clause, and proceedings already initiated for recovery of excise duty remained maintainable. en-us Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 May 2026 10:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44084 Substitution or omission of recovery rules under the Central Excise framework did not extinguish duty liability that had already arisen under the parent Act on manufacture or production of goods. The Full Bench treated substituted Rules 10 and 10A, and later omitted Rule 10, as changes to machinery and procedure only, not to the substantive charging provision. Pending notices and recovery actions were therefore not discharged by the absence of an express saving clause, and proceedings already initiated for recovery of excise duty remained maintainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44084