Direct appeal to Supreme Court for rate-of-duty disputes bars High Court maintainability under the statutory route.

Where an appeal from a CESTAT order involves a question relating to the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment, the statutory appellate route under Section 35L of the Finance Act, 1994 lies directly to the Supreme Court, and the High Court lacks maintainability. Applying that principle to a dispute concerning classification of services and the consequent tax treatment, the Delhi HC held that the appeal was not maintainable before it because the controversy fell within the direct Supreme Court route.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal against the CESTAT order was maintainable before the High Court, or whether it lay directly to the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The dispute concerned classification of the services and the consequent tax treatment. The Court noted that a prior decision had held that where the controversy involves a question having relation to the rate of duty or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment, the matter falls within Section 35L of the Finance Act, 1994 and an appeal from the CESTAT lies directly to the Supreme Court. On that basis, and in the absence of any reason to take a different view, the present appeal was held to be not maintainable before the High Court.

Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable before the High Court and the appellant was left to pursue the statutory remedy before the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the subject matter of the appeal involves a question relating to the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment, the statutory appellate route under Section 35L of the Finance Act, 1994 lies directly to the Supreme Court and the High Court lacks maintainability.

---