Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. This appeal is against an order of the Appellate Tribunal under the Central Excise Act, 1944; the 'Act', for short. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for Central Board of Excise and Customs; for short, 'CBEC'.

2. While it is argued on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal erred in law in the matter of adjudication of the appeal before it and had misdirected itself, the learned counsel for CBEC argued that the questions raised do not merit consideration in this appeal.

3. Perusing the impugned order of the Tribunal and the quality of consideration therein; we see that, keeping aside the intricate manner in which the questions of law have been attempted to be projected, the only issue germane for consideration is, the question of fact, as to whether the quantum of beedies was appropriately arrived at for the purpose of passing the demands which were confirmed even through the penalty order. That quantification was essentially to arrive at the value of goods for the purpose of assessment.

4. An appeal under Section 35G of the Act would not lie to the High Court in terms of sub-section 1 of that Secti