Page 187 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-V v. RELIANCE MEDIA WORKS LTD. 233

has been that appeals in respect of taxability/excisability
from orders of the Tribunal lie only to the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. Thus, the amendment made in 2014 was only clarifi-
catory as is evident from notes on clauses, which, while in-
troducing the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2014, states that sub-
section (2) of Section 35L of the Act is being introduced with
a view to clarify the position.
(b) Reliance is also placed on another Instruction issued on 10th
July, 2014 by the Tax Research Unit, Ministry of Finance
wherein it was specifically stated that the amendment made
in Section 35L of the Act by insertion of sub-section (2) was
only to clarify that the determination of disputes relating to
taxability or excisability of the goods is covered under the
term “determination of any question having relation to rate
of duty and would be appealable from the orders of the Tri-
bunal only to the Supreme Court”.
Thus, it is submitted that the amendment is clarificatory.
(III) (a) We have considered the rival submissions. There could be no
dispute with the submissions canvassed by the appellants to the ef-
fect that generally there is a presumption of prospectivity attached
to a legislation. A new law is to regulate what is to follow and not
what is past. However, this rule is subject to either the provisions of
the statute being made expressly retrospective or by necessary im-
plication retrospective. In our discussion on issue No. (A), we have
already held that even prior to insertion of sub-section (2) to Section
35L of the Act the issues of excisability/taxability decided by the
Tribunal were appealable to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This in the
context of our interpretation of Sections 35G(1) and 35L(l)(b) of the
Act. Moreover supported by various High Courts decisions and also
the fact that such appeals were being entertained by the Apex
Court. In the context of the above, the amendment to Section 35L of
the Act by insertion of sub-section (2) therein, whether retrospective
or prospective, has to be examined. The amendment/insertion of
sub-section (2) to Section 35 of the Act became necessary to set at
rest all doubts as to where appeals arising out of orders of the Tri-
bunal relating to excisability/taxability would lie - whether before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court or the High Court. It appears that this
insertion of sub-section (2) to Section 35L of the Act became neces-
sary as this issue, viz. where such an appeal would lie, was being
urged time and again before various High Courts. To settle the issue
being urged and set the matter at rest, it appears that the amend-
ment has been introduced. The amendment, therefore, is in the na-
ture of a clarification and not bringing about any change in the law,
i.e. excluding a set of orders of the Tribunal, which were earlier ap-
pealable to the High Court, now made appealable to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court for the first time. This is also supported by the plain
reading of sub-section (2) of Section 35L of the Act, which merely
clarifies/states “having relation to the rate of duty shall include the
determination of taxability or excisability of goods for the purpose
of assessment”. In case, it was a new category, then, all that the Par-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  203