JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.—This appeal is filed by the revenue challenging the order passed by the CESTAT [2008 (10) S.T.R. 308 (Trib)] holding that the courier service rendered by the assessees during the period from 15-3-2005 to 15-6-2005 is not liable for payment of service tax. The assessee is providing taxable service under the category of 'Courier Agency'. International consignments during the period from 15-3-2005 to 15-6-2005 were exempted under Rule 4 of Export of Services Rules, 2005. The assessee is not liable to pay service tax under Rule 4 of the Export Rules, 2005. However, the Commissioner held that the assessee is in India and the service receiver who hands over the consignment is also in India and therefore it does not constitute export of service and therefore he confirmed the demand of Rs. 17,89,752/- and also held that the assessee is liable to pay interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred this appeal. 2. The Tribunal on interpretation of Rule 3(2) of the Export Service Rules, 2005 held that during the relevant period the services rendered by the assessees should be deemed to have been derived outside India and therefore the assessee will not be liable for payment of service tax and accordingly the order of the Commissioner was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue is in appeal. 3. This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law :- (a) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in holding that the service rendered by the respondent is outside India? (b) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the respondent are not liable to pay Service Tax on the ground that service is not rendered within India but outside? (c) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the Ministry Circular bearing 341/34/2005-TRU dated 3-1-2005 is not applicable to the facts of the case? From the aforesaid substantial questions of law the principal question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the assessee is liable to pay service tax for a courier service during the period from 15-3-2005 to 15-6-2005 as the service provided by the assessee constitutes export of service? 4. From the aforesaid substantial questions of law the principal question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the assessee is liable to pay service tax for a courier service during the period from 15-3-2005 to 15-6-2005 as the service provided by the assessee constitutes export of service? 4. This appeal is filed against the order under Section 35-G. The said provision makes it clear that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order not being an order, relating to among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty on excise or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment. This case falls squarely within the phrase "determination of any question relating to rate of service tax" and it is the Apex Court alone which has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the said question under Section 35-L of the Act. In that view of the matter, this appeal is not maintainable. This appeal is rejected and liberty is reserved to the revenue to approach the Apex Court against the impugned order. 5. The High Court Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the order and other particulars to enable the assessee to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court.