ORDER Special Leave Petn. (Civil) No. 18408 of 2007: 1. List after four weeks. Special Leave Petn. (Civil) No. 17150 of 2008: 2. In this special leave petition, the revenue has raised the following questions stated to be substantial questions of law for adjudication: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that while computing the deduction under Section 80HHC, excise duty and sales-tax are to be excluded from the total turnover? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the fabrication charges would form part of the profits of business of the assessee for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not considering the fact that profits of the business for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC and profits of business as computed under the head profit and gains of business or profession are distinct and different since the former deals only with export business of the assessee and the latter deals with all business income of the assessee? 3. Since in our opinion vide order dated 14th July, 2008, special leave petition was dismissed qua question No. 1 and no case for grant of leave in respect of the remaining is made out, we deem it unnecessary to state in great detail the facts giving rise to these questions. It would suffice to note that the matter pertains to assessment year 1994-95. 4. Insofar as the 2nd question is concerned, the question for consideration is whether the assessee is entitled to special deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the processing/fabrication charges on the goods which were ultimately exported by other exporters for whom processing was undertaken by the assessee. It is evident from the impugned order that while answering the question in favour of the assessee, the High Court has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of K.R.M. Marine Exports Ltd. v. Asstt CIT: (2007) 288 ITR 151 (Mad). It is evident from the impugned order that while answering the question in favour of the assessee, the High Court has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of K.R.M. Marine Exports Ltd. v. Asstt CIT: (2007) 288 ITR 151 (Mad). In that decision it was held that freezing and processing charges would definitely form part of one of the components of business profits, as the said activity would have a direct and immediate nexus to the activity of export. The said decision also pertained to assessment year 1994-95. Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal learned counsel-for the revenue very fairly states that the said decision of the High Court has not been challenged by the revenue and has thus, attained finality. 5. In view of the above, we decline to entertain the petition on the said question. 6. Regarding question No. 3, we find that the said question does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. Perhaps for this reason the High Court has not dealt with that question. 7. In that view of the matter no fault can be found with the impugned order. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.