1971 (2) TMI 113 - SC - Indian Laws

Proceedings commenced by the Collector of Central Excise by means of the notice challenged - Held that - There are no provisions in the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 which are inconsistent with Rule 126(1)(10) of the Rules . As the Gold (Control) Act, does not exhibit a difference or contrary intention, proceedings initiated under the repealed law must be held to continue. We must also remember that by Gold (Control) Ordinance, Rules were deemed as an act of Parliament. Hence on the repeal of the Rules and the Gold (Control) Ordinance, 1968, the consequences mentioned in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, follow. For ascertaining whether there is a contrary intention, one has to look into the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. In order to see whether the rights and liabilities under the repealed law have been put an end to by the new enactment, the proper approach is not to, enquire if the new enactment has by its new provisions kept alive the rights and liabilities under the repealed law but whether it has taken away those rights and liabilities The absence of a saving clause in a new enactment preserving the rights and liabilities under the repealed law is neither material nor decisive of the question. For the reasons mentioned above we agree with the High Court that the proceedings commenced by the Collector of Central Excise by means of the notice dated June 5, 1965 must be deemed to be continuing. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued for confiscation of gold seized under Gold Control Rules, 1963.
2. Continuation of proceedings under Gold (Control) Ordinance, 1968 after repeal.
3. Interpretation of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 in relation to repealed laws.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of notice for confiscation of gold seized
The case involved a challenge to a notice issued under the Gold Control Rules, 1963 for the confiscation of gold seized from the appellant. The High Court upheld the validity of the notice for confiscation but ruled the penalty proceedings as invalid. The Collector of Central Excise later informed the appellant that the notice was confined to the confiscation of the gold seized. The President withdrew the emergency proclamation, and the Gold (Control) Ordinance of 1968 replaced the relevant provisions. The appellant contended that the notice was no longer valid under the new ordinance.

Issue 2: Continuation of proceedings under Gold (Control) Ordinance, 1968
The Gold (Control) Ordinance of 1968 repealed the relevant provisions of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. Section 117 of the Ordinance provided for the repeal of the previous rules and the continuation of actions taken under those rules if not inconsistent with the new provisions. The appellant argued that the notice issued under the old rules could not continue under the new ordinance due to the absence of provisions for declarations related to primary gold possession.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
The Court analyzed the application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 in relation to the repealed laws and the new enactments. It was held that since the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 were not inconsistent with the previous rules, actions taken under the old rules were deemed to continue under the new Act. The absence of a saving clause in the new enactment was not decisive, and the rights and liabilities under the repealed law were deemed to continue unless expressly taken away by the new enactment.

In conclusion, the Court agreed with the High Court that the proceedings initiated by the Collector of Central Excise under the notice dated June 5, 1965 were deemed to be continuing under the new Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the continuation of the proceedings with costs.