Page 185 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-V v. RELIANCE MEDIA WORKS LTD. 231

section (2) to Section 35L of the Act. The introduction/insertion of
sub-Section (2) to Section 35L of the Act was done as a matter of
abundant caution so as to clarify and make explicit what was im-
plicit in Sections 35G(1) and 35L(l)(b) of the Act. This was done only
to ensure that the Courts do not waste time examining the issue
again and again, when the issue has already been decided by vari-
ous Courts upon which the respondent assessee has placed reliance.
This in support of its case that an appeal with respect to taxabil-
ity/excisability is maintainable only before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India even before the insertion of sub-section (2) of Section
35L of the Act. In fact, this view is also supported by clause 99 of
Notes on Clauses to Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2014 which introduced
sub-section (2) to Section 35L of the Act. It specifically states that
Section 35L is being amended so as to clarify that issue of taxabil-
ity/excisability is covered by the term rate of duty. Thus, what was
implict has been made explicit. We find support for this view in the
decision of the Supreme Court in W.P.I.L. Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Central Excise, 2005 (181) E.L.T. 359. We also note that Punjab &
Haryana High Court in Commissioner of S.T. v. DLF Golf Resort Ltd.,
2018 (56) G.S.T.R. 247 = 2017 (7) G.S.T.L. 202 (P & H) has held that
insertion of sub-section (2) to Section 35L of the Act was clarificato-
ry. Therefore, insertion of sub-section (2) to Section 35L of the Act
w.e.f. 6th August, 2014 would not justify the contention of the Rev-
enue that prior to 6th August, 2014, the appeals were maintainable
before the High Court.
(f) Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the view that even prior
to the insertion of sub-section (2) to Section 35L of the Act, the issue
of taxability and excisability would be an issue relating to the rates
duty of excise/services for the purpose of assessment. Therefore,
the appeal from the orders of the Tribunal deciding issue of excisa-
bility/taxability, cannot be entertained by this Court in terms of Sec-
tions 35G(1) and 35L(l)(b) of the Act, de hors Section 35L(2) of the
Act.
Thus, question No. (A) as referred, is answered as under :-
Appeals from orders of the Tribunal relating to taxability/excisability
passed prior to 6th August, 2014 i.e. the date of insertion of sub-section
(2) to Section 35L of the Act being a rate of duty issue, would be appeal-
able only to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and not the High Court.
7. Regarding issue No. (B) :-
In view of our answer in the affirmative to issue No. (A), this issue be-
comes academic as it also stands covered in favour of the respondent assessee
and against the appellant Revenue.
However, as submissions were advanced by the parties on this issue, we
are examining the same although almost all facets of these submissions have
been ruled upon while deciding issue (A) above.
(I) Mr. Bangur, for the appellant Revenue and Mr. Sridharan, Learned
Senior Counsel appearing in support of the contention that the pro-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  201