1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.171 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Central Excise Thane – II Commissionerate. ...Appellant. vs. M/s.Gini Silk Mills Ltd. ...Respondent. --- Mr.P.S.Jetly with Ms.Anamika Malhotra, for Appellant. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED: 10nd July, 2008. P.C.:- 1. The first question of law that is argued is about levying the duties under the provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal has, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case “Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & others Vs. Union of India & others, (1997)5 Supreme Court Cases 536”, held that for attracting the provisions of Section 2 11D of the Act there has to be sale. In the present case there is no evidence of sale and therefore, the provisions of Section 11D are not applicable. Then the learned Counsel submits that the Tribunal should have considered that because of the processing of the goods by the respondent the value of the goods is increased and therefore, duty has to be revised. Admittedly this point was not urged before the Tribunal. It is submitted because this point was not considered by the Commissioner, the matter may be remanded back to the Commissioner, but in our opinion, the permission cannot be granted to the appellant to raise the said point for the first time before this Court. 2. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, there is no question of law arises. The appeal is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) ---