(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.49 OF 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise,Nashik..Appellant Vs. M/s. CEAT Ltd. .....Respondents Mrs. N.V. Masurkar with Mr. S.M. Shah and Mr. H.P. Chaturvedi, for the Appellant. Mr. D.B. Shroff, Senior Counsel with Mr. H.N. Vakil, Mr. Vipul Bilve i/b.Mulla & Mulla for the Respondent. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & REBELLO & REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. DATED: 11TH JANUARY,2008 DATED: 11TH JANUARY,2008 DATED: 11TH JANUARY,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The only ground raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal was that the fabrics ought to be appropriately classified under C.H.59.02 and not under C.H.59.06 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and, therefore, the benefit of Notification No.4/97 dated 1st March, 1997 is not applicable to the said goods. The learned Tribunal considered the said contention and held that the issues has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa and Chennai vs. M.R.F. Limited reported in 2005 (180) ELT 145 (S.C.) and in the Respondent’s own case in Appeal No.6971 of 1999 dismissing the Appeal filed by the Revenue. Considering that Appeal filed was dismissed. (-2-) 2. The Revenue by the present Appeal has framed the following questions:- "a) There is error of law apparent on the facts of record.It is submitted that the Ld. Tribunal has not applies its mind in respect of wrongful availment of duty on inputs which are used in the final product which final product is exempted from the payment of duty under Notification No.67/95 dated 16-03-1995. b) The findings of the Hon’ble CESTAT is not erroneous but contrary to law and precedents." On consideration of the grounds of Appeal now placed before us and the order of the Tribunal we find that those questions as framed were not in issue before the Tribunal. Once that be the case it would not be open for the Revenue to raise the question for the first time in Appeal before this Court. In the light of the above there is no merits in this Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)