JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.—The Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, which has held that the assessee is not liable to pay service tax. The assessee M/s. PIMAC Engineering & Services (Pvt.) Ltd., entered into licence and technical assistance agreements for the overhaul and installation & commissioning of the gas turbines with a foreign company viz., M/s. Demag Delval Industrial Turbo Machinery Ltd., England. In terms of the agreement, the assessee was required to pay technical service charges and royalty fees at 5% on the value addition to the said foreign company for the transfer of technical know-how and technical assistance and accordingly, the assessee paid an amount of Rs. 14,25,958/- and Rs. 5,23,32,958/- to wards royalty and technical services charges respectively to the foreign company for the period from 28-8-2002 to 1-1-2004. Therefore, on 24-5-2004, a show cause notice came to be issued under Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 calling upon them to show cause as to why service tax, interest and penalty should not be levied on the aforesaid royalty and technical know-how charges. The assessee filed his reply to the said show cause notice contending that technical collaboration is a license for the manufacture and sale of the patented goods described in the schedule of the agreement. The payment of royalty is for (i) the grant of the licensor's rights for use of technical information a well as the technical assistance for the manufacture of the patented goods (ii) the grant of rights for use of intellectual property or patent for the manufacture of the patented goods in accordance with the patented technology (iii) the company is not engaged in the profession of a Consulting Engineer providing advise, consultancy or technical assistance in one or more disciplines of engineering. The transaction between the two companies is a transaction in property and not a transaction of service and the licence to use the patent and or patented technology is a transaction of sale since the patent is of the goods and the licence granted to use the patent is a right to use the goods and therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax. Accepting the said contention, the Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings in pursuance of the said show cause notice. However, the Commissioner issued a show cause notice for reviewing the order. Accepting the said contention, the Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings in pursuance of the said show cause notice. However, the Commissioner issued a show cause notice for reviewing the order. The assessee reiterated the stand before the Commissioner, which did not find favour of the Commissioner. Therefore, he passed an order dated 5-9-2006 by setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and levied the service tax interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal following its earlier judgments held that no service tax is leviable in the facts of the case and therefore, he set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue is in appeal. 2. Therefore, the question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the assessee is liable to pay service tax under the aforesaid agreements. In other words, the question relates to payment of rate of duty/tax. 3. The said question falls squarely within the exception carved out in Section 35G, 'an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment, and the High Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the said issue, as held by this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mangalore Refineries and Petrochemicals Ltd., (2011) 185 ECR 145 (Karnataka). The appeal lies to the Apex Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which alone has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the said question. 4. In that view of the matter, the appeal is rejected as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the Revenue to approach the Apex Court. The High Court registry is directed to return the certified copies of the orders produced, to the Department, to prefer the appeal.