Order: P.W. 1, the Deputy Superintendent of Salt, Guruzanapalli filed the complaint before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate on the allegation that the petitioner was manufacturing salt without obtaining licence which is an offence under section 9 of the Central Excise and Salt Act (I of 1944) read with section 6 of the same Act and rule 102 of the Notification framed thereunder. He was found guilty by the trial Court under the said provision and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six weeks. This conviction and sentence was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Therefore, the petitioner has come up before this Court. It appears that the petitioner was granted a licence to manufacture salt in the Guruzanapalli Salt Factory under the Madras Salt Act of 1889 and the land on which the salt was manufactured was within the boundaries of the Guruzanapalli Salt Factory. It appears that this salt factory was created under the Madras Salt Act of 1889 by Notification in 1928. But it ceased to exist by the Repealing and Amending Act (II of 1948). Since this petitioner has been manufacturing salt without obtaining licence, the complaint was laid against him. The Madras Salt Act of 1889 was repealed by the Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944) and section 39 was inserted which reads as follows: “The enactments specified in the Third Schedule are hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the fourth column thereof. But all rules made, notifications published, licences, passes or permits granted, powers conferred and other things done under any such enactment and now in force shall so far as they are not inconsistent with this Act, be deemed to have been respectively made, published’ granted, conferred or done under this Act.” ‘ In the light of this saving clause all the other acts done under the Act were kept alive and the Guruzanapalli Salt Factory continued to function. The point that has to be determined is whether the Notification and other acts which were kept alive by section 39 of the Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944) continued to be in force till the prosecution was launched. The point that has to be determined is whether the Notification and other acts which were kept alive by section 39 of the Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944) continued to be in force till the prosecution was launched. The contentiton of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, under the Repealing and Amending Act (II of 1948), section 39 and the Third Schedule were wholly repealed with the result that the Notification and the other acts done under the Madras Salt Act ceased to exist and did not have any effect. It is unnecessary for me to go into the facts of the case because most of the facts are admitted by the petitioner. The only question is, as I have stated earlier, whether the Notification made under the Madras Salt Act of 1889 is still in force. I find that the intention of the Legislature by enacting the Central Excises and Sale Act (I of 1944) was to keep alive the Notification made under the Madras Salt Act of 1889. But from a perusal of the Repealing and Amending Act (II of 1948) it appears that section 39 and the Third Schedule were repealed and no saving clause was inserted. In this view, the Notification made under the Madras Salt Act of 1889 cannot continue to be in force. The learned Counsel appearing for the Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to section 24 of the General Clauses Act and Contends that the Notification made under the Madras Salt Act of 1889 will be in force by virtue of this section. But, in my opinion, this can be called in aid only in cases where there is no express provision. In my view, the Legislature in its wisdom did not think it proper to keep alive the notifications made half a century before. Admittedly, the petitioner is manufacturing salt in an extent of Acs. 3.00 of land and the Salt Cess Act of 1953 enacts that under section 6 (2) (e) the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make an exemption for the whole or any part of the cess levied under this Act. Exhibits D-1 2 and D-13 are the Notifications under which people manufacturing salt in an area less than ten acres in extent are exempt from the levy of salt cess. Exhibits D-1 2 and D-13 are the Notifications under which people manufacturing salt in an area less than ten acres in extent are exempt from the levy of salt cess. Therefore, as I have stated earlier, the Notification under which the petitioner was obliged to manufacture salt only under licence no longer exists and since he is manufacturing salt only in an area of three acres, he is exempt from paying any cess. The Revision Petition is, therefore, allowed. The conviction and sentence is accordingly set aside. The accused is acquitted. The fine, if paid, will be refunded to the petitioner. G.S.M. ----- Revision allowed; Conviction set aside.