Page 178 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

224 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

appeal against such an order in terms of Section 35G(1) of the Act,
would lie only before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the
Court also noted that insertion of sub-section (2) to Section 35L of
the Act, w.e.f. 6th August, 2014 was only clarificatory in nature.
Thus, the appeal from an order of the Tribunal relating to taxabil-
ity/excisability would be appealable before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India even prior to 6th August, 2014.
(d) On the other hand, the appellant Revenue placed reliance upon the
decision of this court in Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. (supra) where the
issue was whether the service rendered by Global Vectra Helicorp
Ltd. could be classified under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance
Act, 1994 as contended by the Revenue and upheld by the Tribunal
or not at all under the Finance Act, 1994. The objection raised by the
Revenue to the maintainability of the appeal to this Court was nega-
tived. This on the ground that the issue of rate of duty, i.e. of classi-
fication, would only arise when the authorities have to decide the
appropriate classification between two competing entries under the
Finance Act, 1994. It held no question relating to determination of
the rate of duty can arise when the order under challenge decides
whether the services rendered can be said to be covered by Section
65(105) (zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994.
(e) The Division Bench which referred the above question to this Court,
noted the fact that although Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. (supra) did in
terms refer to Section 35L(2) of the Act, it did not express any view
on it. Moreover, it also noted that the binding decision of the Apex
Court in Navin Chemicals Mfg. & Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Cus-
toms, 1993 (68) E.L.T. 3 and the decision of this Court were also not
considered. Moreover, before the referring Division Bench, the par-
ties did not dispute that post-insertion of sub-section (2) to Section
35L of the Act, w.e.f. 6th August, 2014, orders of the Tribunal relat-
ing to taxability of services and excisability of goods would be ap-
pealable to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(f) It is in view of the aforesaid conflict between the two views of this
Court, as indicated in Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. (supra) and Bajaj
Auto Ltd. (supra), that the aforesaid questions have been referred by
the Division Bench to the Full Bench.
5. We have heard Mr. Bangur, for the appellant Revenue and Mr. Sri-
dharan, Learned Senior Counsel who appears for the appellant in Central Excise
Appeal No. 33 of 2018 where he states an identical question would arise in an
appeal filed by M/s. Shoppers Stop Ltd. Both of them support the proposition
that appeals from orders of the Tribunal in respect of excisability/taxability will
lie to this Court. We have also heard Mr. Desai, Learned Senior Counsel, who
appears for the respondent-assessee to contend that the appeal from orders of the
Tribunal in respect of excisability/taxability will be to the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
6. Regarding issue No. (A)
(I) Mr. Bangur and Mr. Sridharan in support of the contention that pri-
or to 6th August, 2014, appeals on the issues of taxabil-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  194