Excise duty rate disputes are not appealable to the High Court under Section 35G and must go to the Supreme Court.

An appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act was held not maintainable where the dispute concerned the rate of excise duty, because such questions fall outside High Court appellate jurisdiction and within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Section 35L. The court therefore dismissed the appeal for want of maintainability and left the appellant to pursue the statutory remedy before the Supreme Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was maintainable when the dispute related to the rate of duty of excise.

Analysis: Section 35G permits an appeal to the High Court from orders of the Appellate Tribunal, but excludes matters relating, inter alia, to determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for assessment. As the controversy in the appeal was found to concern the rate of duty, the proper forum was the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be not maintainable before the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The matter was dismissed for want of maintainability, leaving the appellant to pursue the statutory remedy before the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not lie to the High Court where the dispute relates to the rate of duty of excise, as such matters fall within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---