Page 186 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

232 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

vision of appeal under sub-section (2) of Section 35L of the Act relat-
ing to taxability and excisability of goods would only have prospec-
tive effect from 6th August, 2014, i.e. the date when that sub-section
was inserted in the Act, made the following submissions :-
(a) Section 35L(2) of the Act, does not state in terms that it
would be retrospective. On this count, in particular, the in-
sertion of sub-section (2) of Section 35L of the Act is made ef-
fective only from 6th August, 2014. Thus, it cannot be held to
be retrospective. It is submitted that every statute is pre-
sumed to be prospective unless made expressly retrospec-
tive. In support of this, it is pointed out that insertion of sub-
section (2) to Section 35L of the Act, was made with effect
from 6th August, 2014. Thus, prospective.
(b) Notwithstanding the fact that notes on clauses to the Finance
Bill, 2014 states that sub-section (2) to Section 35L of the Act
has been introduced so as to clarify that the determination of
the disputes relating to taxability or excisability of the goods
is covered by the expression “determination of any question
having relation to the rate of duty of excise”, yet Section
35L(2) of the Act as enacted does not mention that it is in the
nature of a clarification and/or effective from an earlier date.
Thus, it must be held to be prospective.
(c) The insertion of Section 35L(2) of the Act creates a new
class/category of issues, namely, the taxability/excisability
as being appealable to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Prior to
the above insertion, issues of taxability/excisability were ap-
pealable only to the High Court. In support, reliance is
placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in Navin Chemi-
cals (supra) and the decision of this Court in M/s. Greatship
(India) Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the insertion of sub-section (2)
to Section 35L of the Act has to be read as prospective.
(d) Introduction of a new category, which changes the forum
where an appeal would lie, cannot be held to be retrospec-
tive. In support, reliance is placed upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Videocon International Ltd. v.
SEBI, (2015) 53 taxmann.com 245 wherein it has been held
that altering of the appellate forum from the High Court to
the Supreme Court, curtailed one right of the appeal in re-
spect of an aggrieved person. Therefore, such change of fo-
rum could not be considered to be only a procedural change
but was a substantive change and, therefore, has to be un-
derstood to be prospective in nature.
In the above view, it was submitted that the insertion of sub-
section (2) to Section 35L of the Act, ought to be construed as
prospective w.e.f. 6th August, 2014.
(II) On the other hand, Mr. Desai, Learned Counsel appearing for the
respondent, in support of his contention that the amendment by in-
sertion of sub-section (2) to Section 35L of the Act, is retrospective in
effect, makes the following submissions :-
(a) Consistent view of various Courts in the pre-amendment era
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  202