Page 188 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

234 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

liament had to do was to state that the question of excisability and
taxability arising in of an order of the Tribunal would be appealable
to the Supreme Court. Further, our interpretation that the amend-
ment of Section 35L of the Act, by insertion of sub-Section (2) there-
of was clarificatory in nature, is supported by notes on clauses to
Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2014. In fact, clause 99 thereof states that :-
“Clause 99 of the Bill seeks to insert a new sub-section (2) in
Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, so as to clarify that de-
termination of disputes relating to taxability or excisability is
covered under the expression “determination of any question
having a relation to rate of duty”.
These notes on clauses are used to interpret the statutory provi-
sions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt.
Ltd., 367 ITR 466 placed reliance upon the notes on clauses append-
ed to the Finance Bill, 2002 to hold that the provision, viz. Proviso to
Section 113 of the Income-tax Act has to be construed prosectively.
The Supreme Court relied upon the notes on clauses to hold the
proviso to Section 113 of the Income-tax Act is prospective, overrid-
ing the recommendations of the Chief Commissioners of Income-tax
that proviso should be retrospective. Further in CIT v. Podar Cement
Pvt. Ltd., 226 ITR 625 also, aid was taken by the Apex Court of the
notes on clauses accompanying the Bill, to interpret the statutory
provision. In fact, the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Com-
missioner of Income Tax v. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., 304 ITR 308
has disapproved the view in Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. v. CIT, 289 ITR
83, which had held that reference to notes on clauses cannot decide
whether the amendment is clarificatory, unless the amendment it-
self so unequivocally states. The decision of the Apex Court in Gold
Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. (supra) inter alia relied upon its decision in
Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Moreover, the clarification dated 10th
July, 2014 issued by the Tax Research Unit of the Ministry of Fi-
nance on introduction of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2014 has specifical-
ly stated in Annexure IV thereto, that Section 35L of the Act is being
amended to clarify that issues of taxability/excisability are covered
by the phrase “determination of any question having relation to the
rate of duty”. In fact, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in DLF
Golf Resort Ltd. (supra) placed reliance upon the clarification dated
10th July, 2014 (supra) of the Tax Research Unit to hold Section
35L(2) of the Act is retrospective. It may be pointed out that G.P.
Singh’s in his seminal work, “Principles of Statutory Interpretation”
14th Edn., has observed that amending Act which is declaratory of
the previous law has retrospective operation.
(b) Next submission on behalf of the appellant was that even if there
has been an intent on the part of the Government while introducing
the amendment to Section 35L of the Act by insertion of sub-section
(2) thereof, yet the same does not find mention in the amended Act
as passed by the Parliament. This submission in the present facts
would not be correct. This for the reason that the Act was passed in
the same form as it was introduced along with notes on clauses to
the Bill in the Parliament. Thus, the Parliamentarians were aware
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  204