Per Justice R.K. Abichandani : In all these appeals, the controversy centers around the effect of the omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f. 11.5.2001 and also the omission of Rules 96ZO and 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 w.e.f 1.3.2001. According to the assessees, since there was no saving clause introduced while omitting Section 3A of the Act, the obligations and liabilities even if incurred during the currency of Rules 96ZO and 96ZP did not survive beyond 11.5.2001, being the date of the omission of Section 3A. According to the assessees, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 cannot be invoked in these cases because it applied to 'repeal' of an enactment and not to 'omission' of a provision of the Act enacted by Parliament.

2. The Division Bench before which the matters were listed, noticing that there were conflicting views on the issues involved, has referred the following two issues for being considered by the Larger Bench :-

"(1) Whether, having accepted the position that the protection under Section 38A of the Central Excise Act is available to action taken by the department against them under Rules 96ZO and 96ZP beyond the date of omission of these rules, the assessees are entitled to contend that similar protection under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is not available to departmental action taken under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act after the date of its omission.

(2) Whether Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, which was omitted with effect from 11.5.2001, could be considered to have been 'repealed' within the meaning of this expression used under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897."

3. The learned counsel, Shri G.Natarajan arguing the matter on behalf of all the appellants contended that Section 3A of the said Act was omitted by the Finance Act, 2001 without any saving clause and therefore, actions which could be taken pursuant to Section 3A were not saved after 11.5.2001. It was submitted that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act cannot come to the rescue of the Revenue because Section 3A was only 'omitted' and not 'repealed'. He also submitted that protection under Section 38A, which was simultaneously introduced by the Finance Act, 2001, was not available after Section 3A was omitted. The learned counsel argued that 'repeal' and 'omission' were distinct concepts and 'omission' was, therefore, not protected under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which applied only to 'repeals'. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd & Anr Vs Director of Enforcement, 1969 (2) SCC 412. In that case, the issue involved related to omission of Rule 132A of the Defence of India Rules which precluded any person from dealing with foreign exchange if he was not an authorized dealer and provided, under sub-rule (4), punishment for the offence of contravening the provisions of the said rule, which could extend to two years imprisonment or fine, besides providing for forfeiture of the foreign exchange in respect of which the rule was contravened. It is in the context of such a provision that the Supreme Court held in paragraph-17 that, in the case before it, Section 6 of the General Clause Act could not obviously apply because it applied to 'repeals' and not to 'omissions' and further that it applied when the repeal was of a Central Act or Regulation and not of a Rule. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. Vs UOI, 2000 (37) RLT 1 (SC)=2000 (119) ELT 257 (SC), in which the Supreme Court, in the context of deletion of old Rules 10 and 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which provided for recovery of duties or charges short-levied or erroneously refunded, and regarding delegated powers for recovery of sums due to the government, held that since Rule 10 or Rule 10A was neither a Central Act nor a Regulation defined i