ORDER 1. None appears for the assessee-respondent. 2. Leave granted. 3. In the case of M/s. Beauty Dyers v. Union of India, reported in 2002 (52) RLT 636, the Madras High Court has held Notification No.42/98 to be ultra vires Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. The short question which arose for determination before the Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No.519/2004 (the present case) was: whether the said Rule 3 was ultra vires Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Rule 3 deals with valuation. Earlier, the item in question was to be valued on the basis of removal of the said goods/cleared from the factory gate. However, under Rule 3, the basis of the valuation has been changed from removal/clearance to the annual production capacity. It is correct to say that the said rule has been struck down by the Madras High Court in the afore-stated judgment. However, when the Tax Appeal No.519/2004 came before the Gujarat High Court in the present case, in our view, the above important question of law did arise for determination. The High Court ought to have answered that question. However, instead of answering that question, the High Court has merely stated that no question of law arose for determination in the Department's appeal and the appeal was accordingly dismissed. 5. In our view, an important question of law/substantial question of law arose for determination and it was the duty of the High Court to have answered that question in the Department's appeal. That was the above question. This has not been done. 6. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Gujarat High Court for its decision in accordance with law under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 7. The civil appeal is disposed of accordingly.