Taxability and taxable value disputes relating to royalty and technical assistance fall within Section 35L, not Section 35G.

A challenge to the show cause notice and to the second proviso to Rule 6 and Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 failed because the Supreme Court had already settled that a service recipient could be made liable for service tax and interest where the provider had no independent office in India; the dispute as to the levy period was left to the notice proceedings. On maintainability, the Court held that a dispute on whether royalty, technical assistance, and related consideration formed part of the taxable value directly raised taxability and a question having relation to the rate of duty, so a High Court appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not lie and the proper remedy was under Section 35L.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the show cause notice and the validity of the second proviso to Rule 6 and Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 survived in view of the later Supreme Court ruling on liability of the service recipient; (ii) Whether the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was maintainable where the dispute concerned taxability and whether royalty and technical assistance formed part of the taxable value, i.e. a question having relation to the rate of duty.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the show cause notice and the validity of the second proviso to Rule 6 and Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 survived in view of the later Supreme Court ruling on liability of the service recipient.

Analysis: The challenge to the notice and the attack on the rule provisions was rendered unsustainable because the legal position had been settled by the Supreme Court that the service recipient could be made liable to pay service tax and interest where the service provider had no independent office in India. The remaining objection relating to the period of levy was left to be considered in the proceedings arising from the notice.

Conclusion: The challenge to the notice and the validity of the impugned rule provisions did not survive and the writ petition was disposed of.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was maintainable where the dispute concerned taxability and whether royalty and technical assistance formed part of the taxable value, i.e. a question having relation to the rate of duty.

Analysis: The dispute was not treated as a mere valuation controversy divorced from rate of duty. The Court held that the question whether royalty paid for transfer of technology and know-how, and the connected service-related consideration, was exigible to service tax directly involved taxability and therefore a question having relation to the rate of duty for purposes of assessment. In that situation, the statutory bar in Section 35G applied, and the appeal lay to the Supreme Court under Section 35L rather than to the High Court.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable under Section 35G and the Department was left to pursue the remedy under Section 35L.

Final Conclusion: The writ challenge failed, while the departmental appeal was held to be incompetent in this forum because the controversy fell within the statutory category reserved for the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A dispute which directly raises taxability and whether an item forms part of the taxable base is a question having relation to the rate of duty for purposes of assessment, and an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not lie in such a case.

---