CHANDPAKLAL RAMANLAL SHAH vs RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.

The Supreme Court held that the omission of Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, does not invalidate the charge under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as the substantive provision remains intact. The Court clarified that the omission of a rule is not equivalent to a repeal and that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 does not apply to the omission of a rule. The High Court's decision to discharge the respondent was set aside, allowing the prosecution to continue.