Holding

Pending proceedings under the omitted Rule 10 and Rule 10‑A lapse; Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not apply to the omission of a rule, and any subsequent order is non‑est.

Summary

Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd., a subsidiary of Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd., was granted a sugar incentive rebate for the 1973‑74 season. The Excise authorities later issued a show‑cause notice under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, demanding recovery of the rebate, alleging it was erroneously allowed. While the proceedings were pending, a notification dated 6 August 1977 omitted Rules 10 and 10‑A and introduced a new Rule 10 without any saving clause. The appellant contended that, under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the omission of a rule did not affect pending proceedings, relying on the decision in Raya/a Corporation Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement. The Supreme Court held that Section 6 applies only to the repeal of a Central Act or Regulation, not to the omission of a rule, and that in the absence of a saving provision the pending proceedings lapsed, rendering the later order non‑est. Consequently, the demand for recovery of the rebate could not be upheld and the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies to the omission of a rule under the Central Excise Rules.
Whether pending proceedings initiated under the omitted Rule 10 and Rule 10‑A can continue after their deletion and substitution by a new Rule 10.
Whether the order confirming the demand for recovery of the excise duty rebate is valid.

Legislation cited

Central Excise Act, 1944s. 11-A
Central Excise Rules, 1944s. 10, s. 10-A
General Clauses Act, 1897s. 6

Subjects

General Clauses ActSection 6omission of ruleCentral Exciserebate of excise dutypending proceedingsnon‑est orderstatutory interpretation

Judgment

A KOLHAPUR CANESUGAR WORKS LTD. ETC ETC.
v.
UNION OF I~DIA

FEBRL'ARY 1, 20CO

B (S.f'. BHARUCHA, B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE,
D.P. MUHAPTRA AND N. SA"ITOSH HEGDE, JJ.j

General Clau>es Act 1897, s. 6 r/w. Central Excise Rules 1944, Rules
IO and JOA (omittedj and Central Excises and Salt Act 1944, s. I I-A-Excise
C authorities issuing notice under Rule lOA asking appellant to show cause why
rebate of excise duty erroneously allowed should not be recovered -Rules 10
and JOA deleted and new Rule JO ir1troduced by notification dated August 6,
1977 without any savings clause-Assistant Collector confinning demand by
order dated October 15127, 1977-Appellant Ul!SUccessfully challenging order
D before Collector, Central Government and High Court-Whether the proceed-
ings for recovery of rebate of excise duty wrongly allowed could be continued
after deletion of Rule under which it was initiated--Held, no; s. 6 is not
applicable in the case of omission of a Rule- -Proceedings lapsed after August
6, 1977 and any order passed in the proceedings thereafter was to be treated
as non- est-Interpretation of Statutes.
E
The appellant, which becamt: a subsidiary of Kolhapur Sugar Mills
Ltd. (I(SM) in 1972, was issued a fresh licence by the eAcise authorities
for manufacture of sugar. Pursuant to a claim made by the appellant, the
excise authorities by an order dated October 4, 1973 allowed sugar incen-
F tive rebate of excise duty applicable to ua1 units for the 1973-74 season.
Subsequently by a notice dated April 24, 1977 issued by the Assistant
Collector under Ruoi lOA of the Centrnl Excbe Rules 1944 ('Rul~'), the
appdlant was u~!•ed to show cause •why the rebate of excisc duty erroneous-
ly allowed should not be recovered.

G On August 6, 1977 a notification w-.is issued omitting Rules 10 and
lOA of the Rul~s and introducing a new Rule 10. The notification did not
contain any SU\'ing clause.

The Assistant Collector by au order dated October 15127, 1977
H confirmed the demand of rebate of excise duty wrongly allowed. The
518
KOLHAPUR CANESUUAR WORKS LTD. v. lJ.O.l. 519

appellant failed in its appeal before the Collector, and subsequent revision A
before the Central Government. The appellant's writ petition was also
dismissed by the Delhi High Court.

Before thb Court, the appellant relied upon the decision in Raya/a
Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement, [1970) l SCR 639 to
contend that s. 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 applied only to the repeal B
of an Act or Regulation and not to a Rule. Accordingly, in the absence of
a specific savings clause, the proceedings initiated under the old rule lOA
ceased to exist after August 6, 1977 when the new Rule 10 was introduced.
The appeals against decisions of the High Courts on the same issue as well
as the above case were directed to be heard and were heard hy a Constitu- C
tion Bench of this Court in view of the importance of the question.

Disposing of the appeals, this Court

Held 1.1. The proceeding lapsed after August 6, 1977 and any order
passed in the proceeding thereafter was to be treated as non-est. [536-F] D

1.2. Rule 10 or Rule 10-A was neither a "Central Act" nor a 'Regula·
ti on' as defined in the General Clauses Act. s. 6 was applicable where any
Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of the General
Clauses Act repealed any enactment. It was not applicable in the case of E
omission of a "Rule". [535-E]
',
Raya/a Corporation (P) ltd. v. Director of Enforcement, [1970] l SCR
639, followed.

Mehendra Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1988) 36 ELT 563 (Gujarat); F
Amit Processors Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 21 ELT 24 (Guj.),
affirmed.

Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Limited v. Union of India,
(1993) 42 ECC 126 (Guj.) (FB); Falcon Tyres Ltd. v. Union of India, (1992) G
60 ELT 116 (Karnataka), overruled.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. R. Sharadamma, [1996] 8
SCC 388 and Nagammai Cotton Mills v. Regional Director, Employees State
Insurance Corporation Madras { 1994/ Supp. 2 SCC 142 and Chief In~pector
of Mines v. KC. Thaper, AIR (1961) SC 838, distinguished. H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2CCOj 1 S.C.R.

A S. Krislinan v. State of Madras, AIR (1951) SC 301; Ajanta Paper
Products, Ratanpura, Agra v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, (1982) ELT
201 (ALL), referred to.

1.3. When the question to be considered was whether a particular
provision of the Act applied in a case, then the clear and unambiguous
B language of that provision had to be given its true meaning and import.
In the absence of a provision that pending proceedings shall continue and
be disposed of under the old ru::e as if the rule had not been deleted or
omitted, the pending proceeding~ would lapse on the rule under which the
proceeding was initiated being deleted. [534-A-B; 535-C]
c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2132 of
1994 Etc. Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.85 of the Delhi High
Court in C.W. No. 1804 of 1980.
D G. Ramaswamy, B. Datta, Kapil Sibal, K.N. Bhat and C.S.
Vaidyanathan, Additional Solicitor Generals, F.S. Nariman, R.F. Nariman,
Joseph Vellapalli, H.N. Salve, K. Parasaran, T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, Soli
J. Sorabjee, B.P. Sarthy, P.H. Parekh, S.C. Sharma, D.M. Popat, Ms. Bina
Madhavan, Sunil Dogra, Sushma Suri, A.V. Rangam, A. Ranganadhan, Ms.
E Jankhana Bagadia, (Ms. Gauri Rasgotra, M/s. Purnima Singh, Suman J.
Khaitan,) for M/s. Khaitan & Co. (Ravinder Narain, Ashok Sagar, Sanjiv
Sen), for M/s. JBD & Co., Bhargava V. Desai, Siddharth Chowdhary,
Ravindra Kumar, N.K. Bajpai, Krishnamurthy Swam~ A. Subba Rao, P.
Parmeshwaran, Y.P. Mahajan, Shivram, S.N. Terdol, C.V. Subba Rao, V.K.
F Verma, M.K. Michael, Mr. Ejaz Maqbool and I.M. Nanavati, Associates
for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted in S.L.P. (Civil) No.
G 16223/1985.

The common question raised in all these cases relates to the ap-
plicability of Rules 10 and 10-A of the Central Excise Rules. The cases
were heard together with the consent of learned counsd for parties and
they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of
H brevity the relevant facts are stated with n:ference to Civil Appeal No. 2132
KOl.HAPLR CA.'./P.Sl:GAR WORKS LID. v. U.O.I. ~D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.] 521

uf 1994: A

M/s. Kolhapur Sugar Mills Limited, a holding company, had been in
the business uf production of sugar at Ko!hapur since the year 1933-34.
The appeHant M/s. Kurhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. was registered as a
subsidiary of the said holding company in the year 1972. The holding
company bifurcated their activities when:by the activity pertaining to B
manufacture and sale of sugar was transfcm::d to the appellant company
by a Resolution passed in their Extra-ordinary General Meeting held on
19th October, 1972. Consequent upon this change the appealant, on 9th
October 1973 applied to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise Kolhapur
for L-4 licence for manufacture of sugar. In the covering letter the appel- c
lant had stated that they had taken the sugar undertaking from the holding
company. It was also stated in the latter that the holding company was
having L-4 licence during the year 1972- 73 and that thr;:y had manufactured
sugar during that season and were having their sugar stocks in the godowns
now belonging to the appellant. On receipt of the letter necessary certifi-
cate was issued to the appellant to start business on 15.li.1973 pending D
issue of L-4 licence. A fresh L-4 licence authorising the appellant to
manufacture sugar during the year•ending 31st December, 1973 was issued
on 6th December, 1973 in pursuance of their application.
.
On 9th August, 1974 the appellant sent a letter to the Superinten- E
dent, Central Excise, Kolhapur asking him whether the company were
entitled for a rebate of excise duty on sugar admissible for the season
1973-74 on the ground that they had commenced manufacture of sugar for
the first time during the season 1973- 74. They were informed by the
Superintendent, Central Excise, Kolhapur by letter 23.9.1974 that their
F
factory did not figure in the list of new factories; therefore; they did not
come within the scope of the Notification No. 189n3 and they would not
be entitled for the sugar incentive rebate on excise duty on account of
exci:;ss production of sugar for the year 1973-74 season.

On 7th December, 1974, the appellant applied for rebate on excess G
production for the year 1974-75 on the basis of the Notification' No. 146n4
dated 12th October, 1974. Thfa claim of rebate was for the amount Rs.
6,53,472 on excess production of sugar within two months, October and
Nuvtmber, 1974. Tht Superintendent, Central Excise, Kolhapur by his
letter dated 26th :Way, 1975 informed the appellants that since a fresh L-4 H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) l S.C.R.
A licence was issued to them, their factory will have to be treated as a new
unit, and therefore, the rebate claim filed as an old unit could not be
entertained.

Subsequently, the appellants made an application for grant of incen-
tive rebate on the sugar manufactun:d by them in terms of the Notification
B No. 189/73 dated 4th October, 1973. This rebate claim was scrutinised and
after pm-audit a sum of Rs. 61,14,930 was sanctioned by the Superinten-
dent, Ct;ntral Excise, Kolhapur, vide latter dated 23rd July, 1976. It was
stated in the order sanctioning the rebate that the amount sanctioned
should be credited in the personal ledger account of the appellants and
C utilised for payment of Central Excise duty.

In the meanwhile the petitioner had also filed an appeal against the
order dated 26th May, 1975, rejecting the application for rebate under
Notification No. 146/74 dated 12th October, 1974. This appeal was later on
D withdrawn by the appellants on or about 29th July, 1976.

As the matter stood thus the notice dated 27th April, 1977 was issued
by the Superintendent, Central Excise, A.G. - I Kolhapur, which reads as
follows: ..
E
"NOTE TO SHOW CAlJSE

To,
M/s. Kolhapur Cane:sugar Works Ltd.
Kashba Savada, Kolhapur
F
Whereas the Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd., Kolhapur Holder
of L4 No. 2/Sug./93 had presented their claim on 12.7.76 for rebate
of Central Excise duty on sugar produced in excess during the
season 1973-74 by them as new factory commencing production
G for the first time aftc:r 1.10.1973 as per provision of S. No. 6 of the
table of notification No. 189n3 dated 4.10.1973 and that they were
granted a rebate of Rs. 61,14,930 by the Superintendent Central
Excise AGl Kolhapur vide his letter No. Rebate KCWn3-74/76,
dated 23.7.76 and that they had accordingly taken credit of the said
H amount in their PL.A.
KOLHAPL"R CA<'-'ESUUAR WORKS LID. v. L".O.l. (D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.) 523

Whereas now on re-examination of the facts and circumstances A
connected with the said rebate claim, it appears that M/s. The
Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. Kolhapur are merely a subsidiary
of the holding Company viz. M/s. The Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd.,
Kolhapur, are the owners of the subsidiary, since all the share
issm:d by the subsidiary company are purchased by them. M/s.
Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd., Kolhapur, after formation, have
B
continued the manufacturing of sugar at and with the existing and
running factory of M/s. Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd., Kolhapur.
Though M/s. Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd., Kolhapur obtained
a new licence for the manufacture of sugar, they have not installed
and commissioned working the new factory. It appears that only c
the existing factory has change hands and that the receiving firm
is fully owned by transferring firm. Therefore, M/s. Kolhapur Cane
Sugar Works Ltd., Kolhapur cannot be considered as a new factory
and that they commenced manufacturing of sugar for the first time
after 1.10.1973. M/s. Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd., Kolhapur, D
do not thus appear to be entitled to the rebate sanctioned to him
as a new factory.

Whereas it appears that M/s. Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd.,
Kolhapur are not eligible to rebate for the season 73-74 under any
other provisions of the notification No. 189n3 dated 4.10.73. E

2. Now therefore M/s. Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd., Kolhapur
are hereby required to show cause the Assistant Collector, Central
Excise Kolhapur, why the rebate of Rs. 61,14,930 erroneously
sanctioned and allowed to the credited to their PLA by the F
Superintendent under his letter No. Rebate/KCWn3-74n6 dated
23.7.73, should not be recovered from them under Rule lOA of the
Central Excise Rules, 1944.

3. M/s. the Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd., Kolhapur, are
further directed to produce at the time of showing cause all the G
evidence upon which they intend to rely. in support of their defence.

4. M/s. Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd., Kolhapur should indi-
cate in the written explanation whether they wish to be heard in
pt:rson before the case is decided. If no mention is made about H
524 SC'PRRMR CU CRT REPORTS 2CGOJ I S.C.R.

A this in their written liXJllanation, it would be presumed that they
do not desire a personal hearing.

5. If no cause is shown against the action propot.t:d to be taken
within ten days of the receipt uf this notice, ur they du not appear
bdore the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Kolhapur, when the
B case posted for hearing, the case will be decided on ex-parte.

Sd/ 27.4.77
Superintendent, Central Excise
AC 11, Kolhapur"
c After considt:ring the st.bmissiuns of the appt:Hant in reply to tht:
show cause notice the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, by his order
datt:d 15/27 October, 1977 confirmed the demand for rccrc.;dit of tht:
aforesaid amount uf Rs. 6 l,14,930 that was taken into credit by the
appellants in thdr personal ledger account. Before the order datt:d L5/27th
D October, 1977 could be passed by the Assistant Collt:ctor, Central Excise,
tht: tht:n existing Rult:s 10 and 10-A of the Central Excist: Rul.:s (fur short
'tht: Rules') wert: ddeted/omitkd. A m:w provision was introduced as Rule
10. The appellants went in appeal to the Appt:llate Co!lector who dismissed
the appeal by ordt:r dated 23rd August, 1979. The appellant tht:n:aftt:r filed
E a rt:vision application before the Central Govt:rnment and the Central
Government dismissed the n:vision vidt: ordt:r dated 25th Scptt:mbt:r, 1980.
Thus being unsucct:ssful bdore the statutory authorities the appdlants
fikd Civil Writ 1'<o. 1804/80 in the High Court of Delhi. The Divi;ion Bt:nch
of tht: High Court by the Judgment datt:d 19J 1.1984 dismIBsed the writ
petition. The said judgment b ·1nder challenge in this appt:al.
F
Before the High Court one of the contt:ntions raised on behalf of the
appellants was that Rules IC and 10-A of the Rult:s stood ddctcd and the
new Rule 10 was introduced by tht: Notification dated 6th August, 1977;
the effect of such deletion introduction of new provision was that the old
rules under which the show cause notict: was issut:d ceast:d to exist;
G thereafter further proceedings were without jurisdiction since the ~otifica
tion of 6th August, 1977 did not contain any saving clause. It was also
contended "n behalf of the app~llant that Section 6 of tht: Gt:neral Clauses
Act has no application in thl: case because it docs not apply to repeal of
statutory rules and also because it applit:s only where tht:rc is a rep<0al by
H a Central Act whereas in the present ca.~e the repeal was by a notification.
\
I
KOLHAPLR CA"'P.:;CGAR WORKS LTD. v. U.0.1. [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.) 525

........
\
According to the appellant the order passed after August, 1977 could not A
\ invoke the old rule lO which had been omitted. The High Court repelled
these contentions and dismissed the petition.

When this appeal and the connected appeals came up for hearing
befon: a bench of two learned judges of this Court the Bench considering
the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the appellants took the
B
view that having regard to the importance of the questions involved the
matter should be considered by a Constitution Bench. The relevant portion
of the Refen:nce Order dated 11.9.1997 is quoted hereunder :

''Shri F.S. Nariman, the learned senior counsel appearing for the c
appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2132/94, has placed reliance on the
decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Raya/a Cor-
poration (P) ltd. & Ors. v. Director of Enforcement, New Delhi,
[1970] 1 SCR 639. In that case this Court was dealing with the
provi•ions of Rule 132A of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and D
it was held that the provisions of Section 6 of General Clauses Act
could not be made applicable to the repeal of the Rules and that
the said provisions are applicable only to the repeal of a Central
Act or Regulation. The said decision in Rayala Corporation
(supra) has been considered and explained by various Benches in E
various High Courts. The said decisions are under challenge in this
group of matters. Having regard to the importance of the question,
we consider it appropriate that this matter is considered by the
Constitution Bench. It is therefore, directed that the matter be
placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate
F
directions in this regard."

In the factual backdrop of the case discussed earlier the question that
arises for determination is whether after omission of the old Rule 10 and
10-A and its substitution by the new Rule 10 by the Notification No 267m
dated 6.8.77 the proceedings initiated by the notice dated 27.4.77 could be G
continued in law. If the question is answered in the affirmative then the
order dated l5/27th October, 1977 of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise
confirming the demand for re-credit of the amount of Rs. 61,41,930 cannot
be interfered with. On the other hand, if the question is answered in th!'!
negative then the said order is to be taken as non-est. H
526 S!JPREME COURT RF.PORTS [2000] 1 S.C.R.
I'
A As noted earlit:r, prior to 6th August, 1977 the relevant provisions in
the rules 10 and 10-A. In Rule 10 a provision was made for recovery of
dutit:s or charges short-levied or erroneously refunded. It was laid down
therein that when duties or charges have been short -levied through inad-
vertence, error, collusion, or mis-construction on the part of an otfictr, or
B through mis-statcmrnt as to the quantity, description or value of such
goods on the part of the owners, or when any such duty or charge, after
having been kvied. has been owing to any such cause, erroneously
refunded, the propt::r officer may, within three months from the date on
which the duty or charge was paid or adjusted in the owner's account-cur-
rent, if any, or from the date uf making the n:fund, serve a notice un the
C person from whom such deficiency in duty or charges is or are recoverable
requiring him to show cause to the Assistant Collt:ctor of Central Excise
why ht: should aot pay the amount specified in the notice. In sub-rule (2)
uf Ruk 10 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise was vested with the
power to pass appropriate order determining the amount of duty or
D charges due from such person and thereupon such person was to pay the
amount so determined within 10 days from the dak on which he is required
to pay within the period specified.

Rule 10-A contained the provision rt:garding residuary powers for
recovery of sums due to Government when: the Rules do not make any
E specific provision for the collection of any duty, or of any deficiency in duty
or of any other sum of any kind payable to the Central Government under
the Act. The procedure laid down in this rule was similar to Rult: LO i.e.
issue uf a show-cause notice for determination of the amount due, etc.

Rules 10 and 10-A were omitted and a new provision was introduced
F by Rule 10 with effect from 6th August 1977. In the said Rule a period of
6 months was prescribed for initiating action for realisation of the duty
which has not been levied or paid or has been short- levied, erroneously
refunded or any duty assessed has not been paid in full. Nu provision
regarding residuary power was made in the Rules.
G
Section llA which was inserted with effect frollt" 17.11.1980 vide
Notification No. 182/80 CE, dated 15.11.1980, by Section 21 of the Customs,
Central Excise and Salt and Central Board uf Revenue (Amendment) Act,
1978 (25 of 1978) reads as follows :

H ··11-A. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-lt:vied or
KOLHAPL:R CANESUGAR WORKS LTD. v. U.O.l. [D.P. MOHAPATRA. J.] 527

short-paid or erroneously refunded. ( 1) When any duty of excise A
bas not been levied or paid or has been short- levied or short-paid
or erroneously refunded, a Central Excise Officer may, within six
months from the relevant date, serve notice on the person charge-
able with the duty which has not been levied or paid or which has
been short-levied or short-paid or tu whom the refund has er-
B
roneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should
not pay the amount specified in the notice :

Provided that where any duty of excise has nut been levied or
paid or has been short-!t:vicd or short-paid or erroneously
refunded by reason of fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement c
or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions
of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade
payment of duty, by such person or his agent, the provisions of this
sub-section shall have effect, fur the words "six months", the words
"five years" were substituted.
D
Explanation : Where the service of the notice is stayed by an order
of a court, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing
the aforesaid period of six months or five years, as the case may
be.
E
(2) The Central Excise Officer shall, after considering the
representation, if any, made by the person on whom notice is
served under sub-section (1) determine the amount of duty of
excise due from such person (not being in excess of the amount
specified in the notice) and thereupon such person shall pay the
amount so dett:rmined. F

(3) For the purposes of this section, -

(i) "refund" includes rebate of duty of excise on excise goods
exported out of India or on excisable materials used in the G
manufacture of goods which are exported out of India;

(ii) "relevant date" means -

(a) in the case of excisable goods on which duty of excise
has nut been levied or paid or has been short - levied H
528 SUPRbivlb CO!R l' Rbl'ORTS {20001 I S.C:.R.

A or short-paid -

l<Xl<XJO<XXXXXX

xxxxxxxxxxxx

(c) in tht: case of cxcisabk goods on which duty of excise
B has bet:n crroncou,ly r.:fundd, the date of such refund.

Since the proceeding ini!l.tlt:d by the show-cause notic1: and the
order passed on it dre sought to be supported on the ha'i' of the provisions
in section 6 t•f the nem:ral Clamcs Act :1 will be conwnient to quote the
sdid st:ction :
c
6. Effect of repeal - Where this Act, or any (Ci:ntral Act) or
Regulation madi; afkr the commenci::ment of this Act repeals any
enactment hitht:rto made or hen.after to be made, then, unless a
diff.:rt:nt mtt:ntion appc<..rs, tht: n;peal >hall not -

D (a) revive anything not in for cl or existing at tht: time at which
tht: repeal takes dfoct; or

(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed
or anything duly done or suffered thert:under; or

E (c) affect any right, privilcgt:, obligation or liability acquired,
accrued or incurn:d und.:r any t:nactrnent so repealed; or

(d) affect any penalty, forfeit '1fe or punishment incurred in
respect of any offt:nce committed against dny t:nactrnent so
rt:ptdied; or
F
(e) afft:ct any invt:stigation, legal proceeding cir remedy in respect
of any such right, privikgt, obligation, liability pt:ndity, for-
feiture or punishment as aforesaid;

and any such investigation, legal proceeding or n:medy may be
G
instituted, continued or .-nforced, and any such pi;;nalty, forfeiture
or punishment may be impostd as if the rept:aling Act or Regula-
tion had not been passed.

The term '( 'entral Act' ha~ been ckfin.:d in section 1(7) which shall
H mt:an an Act of Pdrliament; and shall indudt: ·
K.O!.HAPLRCA\bSL C.AR WORK.~ I 1:1. '· L.O.l. (!l.1'. Yl.OHAP.\JKA. .l.j 52lJ

(a) an Act of the Dorninil'n Ltgislatun: or of the Indian Lcgis- A
latun: pa"ed bdur e the ct 'ffimcnctmt:nt of the Constitution,
and

(b) an Act made before sut·h commenc..:nwnt by the ( iov..:rnor-
(f.,n..:rnJ. in-Council m tht: Oovc:rnor ( ;..:neral, acting in a
kgislative capacity. B

Thc term ''t:nactmtnt' is ddim:d in Scction 3(:9) as enactment' shall
include a Regulation (as hcn:inaftcr defined and any Rcgl!lation uf the
Bengal, \ladras ,,r Bombay Cudt.: and shall also include any provision
contained in any Act or in any such Regulation as afurt.:said).
c
Th;;; t<:rm "Regulation" as dcfim;,d in Section 3(50) of tht: Act means
a Regulation made by the Pn:sidtnt under Article 240 of the { :onst'.tution
and shat! indudt: a Regulation made by the presidt:nl undt.:r Artich: 243
thereof and a Regulation made by foe Central CJovernment under the
Governm.:nt of India Act 1870 or the ( lovernmrnt of ln&a Act 1915 or D
the Government of India Act, 1935.

At this stagc we may also note the definition of "Rule' in st:ction
3(51) of tht: Act wherein it is prnvidtd that the term ··Ruh:'' shall rntan a
Rule madt: in exercise of a power conferred by dll tnactm.:nt and shall
include a Regulation made as a Ruk under any <;nactment. E

The applicability of Section 6 of the Act in similar tact situations
camt: up for consideration in the cast: of Mis. Raya/a Corporation P. Ltd.
[1969] 2 SCC 412. There this Court ob,erved as follows : (Para 1.)) ;

··15. Rtft:rcncc was m:xt to a decision of the Madhya Pradesh F
High Court in State uf i'i-!adhya Prade:>h v. Hirata/ Sutwala, AIR
( 1959) M.P. 93, but, there again, tht: accus<;d was sought to be
pros..:cutcd for an offence punishable under an Act on the n;peal
of which Scction 6 of the General Clauses Act had b<:cn made
applicabk. ln the case before us, Section 6 of the ( rencntl Clauses
Act cannot obviomly apply on the omission of Ruk 132-A of the
G
D .I.Rs. for the two obvious reasons that Section 6 only applies to
repeals and not to omissions, and applies when the repeal is of a
Central Act or Regulation and not of a Ruk. U Section 6 of the
General Claus;;;s Act had been applitd, no doubt this compliant
against the two accustd for the offence punishabk under R. 132-A H
530 SCPREME COURT REPORTS [2lX,'O] 1 S.C.R.

A of the DJ.Rs. could have been instituted even after the repeal of
that rule.''

In Mehendra Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (.1988) 36 E.L.T. 563
(Gujarat) it was held that when old Rules lO and 10-A were omitted on
6.8.1977 and new Ruk 10 was brought in forci:: on that very day and as
B there was no saving clausi:: in thi:: notification ddi::ting and introducing thi::se
rules, and as Section 6 of the General Clause~ Act did not help as this is
a case of the omission of rules and not of their repeal, the pending
proceedings unde· old Rule 10 could not be continu.:d and could not bi::
adjudicated upon under new Rule 10 by thc departmental authorities.
C Consequently, the proccedings pending for adjudication under show cause
notices under old rule prior to 6.8.19/'7. bt:came incompi::tent aftt:r 6.8.77.
Rella.net: was placed on the decision in Rayala Corporation (supra). The
High Court after considering the effect of omission of Ruks 10 and 10-A
with effect from 6.8.77 and the subsequent enactment of Section ll-A of
D the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 observed that it is pertinent to note
that while enacting new Ruk 10, sub-rule (2) was enacted which in terms
provided that the Assistant Collector shall, after considering the n:pre-
sentation, if any, made by the person on whom notice is served under
sub-rule (1) determine the amount of duty due from such person; it,
therefore, clearly contemplates that the Assistant Collector under new rule
E 10 had to adjudic.te upon the notice served under sub-rule (1) of new Rule
10; no power is conf<;;rred under sub-rule (2) of new Rule 10 on the
Assistant Collector to adjudicate upon pending notices issued under sub-
stituted Rule 10, <ind in that view of the matter, on prmciple, no difference
can be found between the scheme of new Rule 10 as envisaged by Notifica-
F lion No. 267 of 1977 and the later scheme adopted by the rule making
authority when th~ said rule was omitted and Section 11-A was enacted on
the very same day by the Parliament. The Court rejected the contention
that it is not a ease of omission of Rules 10 and 10-A and of enactment of
new Rule 10 but 1 case of substitution.

Q A similar view was taken by the High Court of Gujarat in Amit
Processors Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Others, (1985) 21 ELT 24 (Guj.).

In Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Limited v. Union of
India, (1993) 42 ECC 126 (Guj.) a Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court
H considered the question of maintainability of a proceeding initiated on a
KOLHAPURCANFSUGAR WORKS LTD. v. U.0.1. :D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.J 531

notice issued under Rule 10 of the Central Excise, Rules 1944, after the A
said Rule was omitted and the provision in Rule 10-A was introduced. The
Pull Bench held that the notices issued or actions taken under the sub-
stituted Rule lO and LO-A or omitted Rule 10 would not stand discharged
or terminated upon substitution or omission as the case may be and the
proceedings initiated on the basis of the said rules would not come to an
end or lapse. The Full Bench overruled the decision in Amit Processors
8
Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Mahendra Mills (supra).

A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High
Court in Falcon Tyres Ltd. v. Union of India, (1992) 60 E.L.T. 116 (Kar-
nataka). c
In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. R.
Sharadamma (Smt.), [1996] 8 SCC 388, the effect of change in law on the
jurisdiction to impose penalty under Section 274(2) requiring the Income
Tax Officer to n:fer such type of cases to Inspecting Assistant Commis-
sioner (IAC) and empowering the IAC to impose penalty in such case D
which was omitted w.e.f. 1.4.1976, arose for consideration. In the facts of
the case this Court held that where a n:fen:nce was made to the IAC in
accordance with the law in force on the date of reference and the IAC was
thus seized of the matter, he did not cease thereof on account of the
deletion of sub-section (2) of Section 274. The principle underlying Section E
6 of the General Clauses Act was relied in support of the view. This Court
summed up the finding in these words (Para 11) :

;'We are, therefore, of the view that the Inspecting Assistant Com-
missioner did not lose the jurisdiction to continue with the
proceedings pending before him on 31.3.1976 by virtue of the F
deletion of sub-section (2) of Section 274 by the Taxation Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1970 with effect from 1.4.1976. He was entitled
to continue with those proceedings and pass appropriate orders
according to law."

The applicability of Section 6 of the Act to the case was not ques- G
tioned in the case. Therefore, the decision should be read in the context
of the facts of the case. It has no general application.

In the case of S. Krishnan v. State of Madras, AIR (1951) SC 301 this
Court held that the general rule in regard to a temporary statute is that in H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 1 S.C.R.
\
A the absence of special provision to the contrary, proceedings which are
being taken against a person under it will ipso-facto terminate as soon as
the statute expires. The Constitution Bench of this Court considering the
provision of the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951, the con-
stitutional validity of Sections 9(2) and 12(1), held thus :

B 'The combined effect of Ss. 9(2)(a) & 12(1) is to provide, in a
certain class of cases, namely, where detention orders were in force
at the commencement of the new Act, that the persons concerned
could be detained for a period longer than three months if an
Advisory Board reports that there are sufficient grounds for deten-
c tion within ten weeks from the commencement of the new Act,
that is to say, without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board
before the expiration of the three months from the commencement
of the detention as provided in sub-0. (a) of cl (4).And, although
the new Act does not in express terms prescribe in a separate
provision any maximum period as such for which any person may
.D
in any class or classes of cases be detained, it fJXes;. by extending
the· duration of the old Act till 1.4.1952, an over-all time-limit
beyond which preventive detention under the Act cannot be con-
tinued. The general rule in regard to a temporary statute is that,
· in the absence of special provision to the contrary, proceedings
E which are being taken ·against a person under it will ipso facto
terminate as soon as the statute expires (Craies on Statutes, Edn.
4 p.437). Preventive detention which would but for the Act
authorising it, be a continuing wrong, cannot, therefore, be con-
tinued beyond the expiry of the Act itself. The new Act thus in
substance prescribes a maximum period of detention under it by
F
providing that it shall cease to have effect on a specified date. It
seems to me, therefore, that S. 9(2)(a) & section U(l) of the new
Act substantially satisfy the requirements of sub-cl. (b) of a. (4)
of Art. 22, & cannot be declared unconstitutional & void.'

G In the case of Nagammai Cotton Mills v. Ref!ional Director, ·Employees
State Insurance Coporation Madras, [1994] Supp. 2 SCC 142, this Court
ronsidered the provision of Section 73-A and 73-D of the Employees State
Insurance Act, 1948, which were added by Amendment, Act, 1951 in the
statute f9J the period 1960 - 1973. The said provisions were repealed in
H 1973. A contention was raised that the provisions of the Act having been

-·
KOUIAPUR CANESUGAR WORKS LID. v. U.O.I. [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.J •· 533 · .•

repealed in 1973 the opposite parties could not have initiated proceediogs . A
in 1976. The contention was repelled by the High Court relying on Section
6 of the General Clauses Act. This Court referring to Section 6 observed
that the learned counsel for the appellant could not show any provision
from which it could be gathered that the provision in the Act at the time
of repeal indicate that the legislature intended otherwise than what is
provided in the Se~tion 6 of the General Clauses Act. In that case the
B
applicability of Section 6 to the case was not in question as the relevant
. provisions of the statute were omitted by a Central enactment. The decision
is distingui<.hable.

The Allahabad High. Court in the case of Ajanta Paper products, C
Ratanpura, Agra v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, (1982} ELT 201 All.
also took a similar view.

We have carefully considered the decisions inSaurashtra Cement and
Chemical Industries (supra) and Falcon Tyres case (supra). Though the D
judgments in these cases were rendered after the decision of the Constitu-
tion Bench inRayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (supra) a different view has been
iaken by the High Courts for the reasons stated in the judgments. The Full
Bench of the Gujarat High Court hi Saurashtra Cement and Chemical
Industries (supra}, as it appears from the discussions in the judgment,. tried ·
to distinguish the· decision of the Constitution Bench in M/s. Raya/a Cor- E
poration (supra} for reasons, we are constrained to say not sound in law.
The decision of the Constitution Bench is directly on the question of
applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act in a case where a rule
. is deleted or omitted by a notification and the question was answered in
the negative. The Constitution Bench said that "Section 6 only applies to F
repeals and not to omissions, and applies mi.en the repeal is of a Central
Act or Regulation and not of a Rule" (page 656 of the Supreme Court
Report):

The Full Bench appears to have lost sight of the position that all the
relevant terms ie. 'Central Act', 'Enactment' 'Regulation',· and 'Rule' are G
defined in Sub-section 3(7), 3(19), 3(5}, 3(50)a;:,d 3(51} respectively of the
General Clauses· Act. When the term Central Act or Regulation or Rule
is used in that Act reference has to be made to the definition of that term
in the statute. It is not possible nor permissible. to give a meaning to any
of tlieterms different from the definition. It is manifest that each term has H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 1 S.C.R.
A a distinct and st:parate meaning attributed to it for thi:: purposi:: of the Act
Thi::refore, wht:n the question to be considered is whether a particular
provision of the Act appfa:s in a ca~e then the clear and unambi.guous
language of tha1 provision has to be given its true meaning and import. The
full Benc1 has equated a 'rule' with 'statutt:'. In our considered view this
B is impermissibk in view of the specific pruvtsions in the Act When the
legislature by clear and unambiguous languagi:: has extendt:d the provision
of section 6 to cases of repea: of a 'Ci::ntral Act' or 'Regulation', it is not
possible to apply the provist0n to a cast: of n:peal of a 'Rule'. The position
will not be diffen:nt even if the rule has been framed by virtue of the power
vested under an enactment; it remains a 'ruk' and takes its colour from
C the definition of the term in the Act (General Clauses Act). At the cost of
repetition we may say that the omissions in the judgment in M/s. Raya/a
Corporation (supra) pointed cut in paragraph 17 of the judgment of the
Full Bench haw no substance as they are not relevant for determination
of the question raised for the reasons stated herein.

D
In paragraph 21 of the judgment the Full Bench has noted the
decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Chief Inspector of Mines
v. KC. Thapar, AIR (1961) SC 838 and has relied upon the principles laid
down therein. The Full Bench overlooked the position that that was a case
under section 24 of the General Clauses Act which makes provision for
E continuation of orders, notification, scheme, rule, form or bye-law, issued
under the repealed Act or Regulation under an Act after its repeal and
re-enactment. ln that case section 6 did not come up for consideration.
Therefore the ratio of that case is not applicable to the present case. With
respect we agree with the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench
p in M/s. Raya/a Corporation case (supra). In our considered view the ratio
of the said decision squarely applies to the case on hand.

For the reasons set forth above we do not accept the view taken in
Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. (supra), in Falcon Tyres
G Ltd. (supra) and the other decisions taking similar view. It is not correct
to say that in considering the question of maintainability of pending
proceedings initiated under a particular provision of the rule after the said
provision was omitted the Court is not to look for a provision in the newly
added rule for continuing the pending proceedings. It is also not correct
to say that the test is whether there is any provision in the rules to the effect
H that pending proceedings will lapse on omission of the rule under which
KOLHAPURCANESlJGAR WORKS LTD. v. L'.O.I. ;o.P. MOHAPATRA,J.] 535

the notice was issued. It is our considered view that in such a case the A
Court is to look to the provisions in the rule which has been introduced
after omission of the previous rule to determine whether a pending
proceeding will continue or lapse. If then: is a provision therein that
pending proceedings shall continue and be ·disposed of under the old rule
as if the rule has not been deleted or omitted then such a proceeding will
continue. If the case is covered by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act or
B
there is a pari-materia provision in the statute under which the rule has
been framed in that case also the pending proceeding will not be affected
by omission of the rule. In the absence of any such provision in the statute
or in the rule the pending proceedings would lapse on the rule under which
the notice was issued or proceeding was initiated being deleted/omitted. It c
is relevant to note here that in the present case the question of divesting
the Revenue of a vested right does not arise since no order directing refund
of the amount had been passed on the date when Rule 10 was omitted.

We, therefore, b.old that the decisions of the Full Bench of the
Gujarat High court and the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court D
noted above were not correctly decided. The said decisions are overruled.

In the case in hand Rule 10 or Rule 10-A is neither a "Central Act"
nor a "Regulation" as defined in the Act. It may be a Ruic under Section
3(51) of the Act. Section 6 is applicable where any Central Act or Regula- E
tion made after commcnci;ment of the General Clauses Act repeals any
enactment. It is not applicable in the case of omission of a "Rule''.

The position is well known that at common law, the normal effect
of repealing a statute or deleting a provision is to obliterate it from the p
statute book as completely as if it had never been passed, and the statute
must be considered as a law that never existed. To this rule, an exception
is engraftcd by the provisions Section 6(1). If a provision of a statute is
unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending
proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission finds them, and if
final relief has not been granted before the omission goes into effect, it G
cannot be granted afterwards. Savings of the nature contained in Section
6 or in special Acts may modify the position. Thus the operation of repeal
or ddction as to the future and the past largely depends on the savings
applicable. In a case where a particular provision in a statute is omitted
and in its place another provision dealing with the same contingency is H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2CJC0] 1 S.C.R.
A introduced without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings then
it can be reasonably inferred that the intention of the legislature is that the
pending proceeding shall not continue but a fresh proceeding for the same
purpose may be initiated under the new provision.

In the present case, as noted earlier, Section 6 of the General Clauses
B Act has no application. There is no saving provision in favour of pending
proceeding. Therefore action for realisation of the amount refunded can
only be taken under the new provision in accordance with the terms
thereof.

C The further question that arises for consideration in this connection
is whether the notification No. '267n7 dated 6.8.77 by which Rule 10 was
deleted contained any provisio11 for continuance of the proceedings already
initiated and whether Act 25 of 78 which introduced Section 11-A of the
Central Excise Act, adopted the legal device of creating a fiction by virtue
D of which a proceeding under Rule 10 could be deemed to be a proceeding
under section 11-A of the Act If such was the position then it could be
argued thc::t the proceeding initiated when old Rule 10 was in force could
be continued on the strength of the clause of the notification by which the

E
said Rule was omitted and substituted by a new Rule which in turn was
substituted by section 11-A of the Act. -
From the contents of the: provisions in the Rules it is clear that it did
not contain any saving clause for continuance of the proceeding initiated
under the rule which was deleted/omitted. There is also no provision in
Section 11-A or in any other Section of the Act saving the proceedings
p initiated under the deleted/omitted provision. The consequential position
that follows is that the proceeding lapsed after 6th August 1977 and any
order passed in the proceeding thereafter is to be treated as non-est. In
case the notice was issued after Section 11-A was introduced in the Act,
the proceeding will continue and will not be affected by this decision. All
the cases are disposed of on the terms aforesaid. No costs.
G
S.M. Appeals disposed of.