Appeals concerning service taxability or excisability lie to the Supreme Court under Section 35L, not Section 35G.

The respondent claimed a cash refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for services provided to its overseas Microsoft entities.

The CESTAT held that the respondent was not an “intermediary” and that the services qualified as exports.

The Commissioner appealed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking to set aside the CESTAT’s final order dated 9 December 2024.

The respondent objected that the appeal was not maintainable before the High Court and that the proper forum was the Supreme Court under Section 35L.

1. Whether the appeal was maintainable before the High Court under Section 35G, or was required to be brought before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944

2. Whether the CESTAT’s determination concerning the nature and export status of the respondent’s services fell within the statutory exclusion for questions relating to the rate of duty or value for assessment

Sections 35G and 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 establish a mutually exclusive appellate scheme: Section 35G provides for appeals to the High Court but excludes orders relating to the determination of questions having a relationship to the rate of duty or value for assessment, while Section 35L assigns such appeals to the Supreme Court.

Section 35L(2) includes questions concerning taxability or excisability for assessment within the determination of questions relating to the rate of duty.

The Court applied M/s. Alupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II, 2026 INSC 582, which construed the exclusion broadly, while requiring the relevant connection to rate or value to arise in the context of assessment.

It also referred to Navin Chemicals Manufacturing & Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, (1993) 4 SCC 320, on disputes directly and proximately related to the rate of duty for assessment.

The Court examined the substance of the dispute decided by the CESTAT, rather than the form of the refund claim.

The CESTAT had determined whether the respondent’s services to overseas entities were intermediary services or exports, based on the parties’ relationship and agreements.

The High Court characterized that determination as concerning the classification and excisability of the services and their value for assessment.

Applying Alupro, it concluded that the appeal fell within the exclusion in Section 35G and the corresponding Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction under Section 35L.

It dismissed the appeal, reserving liberty to the appellant to approach the Supreme Court in accordance with law.