Page 191 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] J.K. TRADERS v. UNION OF INDIA 237

24th March, 2015. Moreover, we are examining the decisions ren-
dered by this Court in Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. (supra) and the ab-
sence of consideration of the binding decisions cannot be filled up
by referring to other decisions of the same Bench.
(d) As against the above, the decision of this Court in Bajaj Auto Ltd.
(supra) had held that whether a particular service/goods attracts
tax/duty or not, would be covered within the ambit of rate of duty
for assessment. It further held that sub-section (2) to Section 35L of
the Act was merely clarificatory in nature as it was in the nature of
explanation. Therefore, holding that it would apply even to appeals
filed from the orders passed by the Tribunal prior to the introduc-
tion of sub-section (2) to Section 35L of the Act. The decision of this
Court in Bajaj Auto Ltd. (supra) is in accord with our view, as dis-
cussed above and represents the correct view.
9. In view of our above discussion, we now answer the questions posed
in the reference for our opinion as under :-
Regarding question (a) - Appeals from orders of the Tribunal relating
to taxability or 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 appealable only to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
not the High Court.
Regarding question (b) - The amendment made to Section 35L of the
Act is clarificatory in nature and, therefore, retrospective in operation.
10. In view of our answer to the questions as framed, the appeal be
placed before the Division Bench for appropriate decision in accordance with
law.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 237 (Pat.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Sanjay Karol, CJ and Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J.
J.K. TRADERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA

Letter Patent Appeal No. 1306 of 2019 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6657 of
1
2019, decided on 20-12-2019
Seized goods alleged to be smuggled - Release of - Confiscation (Cus-
toms) - Seizure of vehicle carrying ‘Full dried Areca Nuts’ allegedly smuggled
from Nepal - Application for release of goods rejected on the ground that re-
port of laboratory indicating that goods suspected to be not fit for human con-
sumption - HELD : Consignor and consignee recorded and identified - Goods
not seized at any notified Customs zone or area - Additional Solicitor General
trying to supplement reasons for formation of ‘reason to believe’, on mere sus-
picion, through affidavit of authority - General practice in trade cannot be, ip-
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from CWJC No. 6657 of 2019, decided on 5-9-2019 by Patna High Court.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  207