Valuation disputes under central excise must follow the statutory appeal route to the Supreme Court, not the High Court.

Questions concerning undervaluation and clandestine removal of excisable goods, where the dispute directly relates to valuation for assessment of duty, fall within the statutory appellate route to the Supreme Court under the Central Excise Act. In such valuation disputes, Section 35G bars the High Court from entertaining the appeal, and Section 35L(1)(b) governs the proper forum. The operative effect is that appeals raising valuation issues must be pursued before the Supreme Court rather than the High Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the High Court was maintainable when the dispute related to valuation of excisable goods and the statutory route lay to the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The controversy arose from a demand confirmed in relation to alleged undervaluation and clandestine removal of excisable goods. The dispute, as conceded, had direct relation to valuation of excisable goods for the purpose of assessment of duty. In such matters, the statutory bar under Section 35G and the appellate route under Section 35L(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 govern the forum of appeal, and the High Court does not entertain the appeal on such questions.

Conclusion: The appeal before the High Court was not maintainable and the appellant was required to approach the Supreme Court under the statutory provision applicable to valuation disputes.

---