Manufacture question affecting excise duty assessment must be taken to the Supreme Court, not the High Court.

A dispute over whether re-glasslining of old vessels constituted manufacture was treated as a question affecting the rate of duty and assessable value for excise assessment. Because the controversy turned on whether the process produced excisable goods, it fell within the statutory category governing such questions and not within the High Court's appellate jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The proper forum was the Supreme Court under Section 35L(b), and the High Court held the appeal was not maintainable before it and dismissed it.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was maintainable when the dispute concerned whether re-glasslining of old vessels amounted to manufacture and therefore involved determination of the rate of duty or value of goods for assessment, attracting Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The Court held that a question whether any process undertaken by a manufacturer amounts to manufacture, and whether the goods resulting from that process are excisable, falls within the expression relating to determination of the rate of duty of excise or the value of goods for the purposes of assessment of duty. Since the controversy concerned whether re-glasslining of old vessels amounted to manufacture and thus affected assessment of duty, the proper forum was the Supreme Court rather than the High Court.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable before the High Court and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the controversy turns on whether a process amounts to manufacture and thereby affects the rate of duty or assessable value, the appeal lies under the statutory provision governing such questions and not under the High Court's appellate jurisdiction.

---