JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.—This appeal is by the Revenue, challenging the order passed by the Tribunal [2009 (247) E.L.T. 271 (Tri. - Bang.)] holding that the Revenue has not discharged its burden of proving that there was clandestine removal of the inputs on which Cenvat credit was availed and there-fore the demand of duty by the Revenue is unjustified. 2. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of HDPE/PP, woven fabrics, sacks. The assessee availed Cenvat credit of the duty paid on HDPE/PP granules purchased from various manufacturers. The officers of the DGCEI visited their factory and carried out various investigations. On 4-7-2003 a show cause notice was issued to the assessee to show cause as to why the 323 bags of plastic granules seized in the godown of M/s. Mahalakshmi Plastics, be not confiscated and that they have contravened the provisions of Rule 57A/57AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001-2002 and appear to have clandestinely removed them without payment of duty. Further it was stated that when the assessee was entitled to only 7.5% why the actual percentage of waste which is more than 7.5% should not be levied with excise duty. The assessee filed his objections. Overruling the objections, the Commissioner of Excise has confirmed the demand, imposed a penalty of Rs. 16,83,543.00 and also directed confiscation. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal. 4. The appellate authority on re-examining the facts, held that the Revenue has not discharged its burden of proving that there was clandestine removal of inputs on which Cenvat credit was availed and therefore the demand and penalty is illegal and set aside the order of the Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue is in appeal. 5. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the question involved in this appeal is : Whether the demand of duty and penalty on the wastage claimed by the assessee, which is more than 7.5% is leviable to excise duty? 6. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue is in appeal. 5. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the question involved in this appeal is : Whether the demand of duty and penalty on the wastage claimed by the assessee, which is more than 7.5% is leviable to excise duty? 6. The said question falls squarely within the exception carved out in Section 35G, 'not being 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 Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Mangalore Refineries and Petrochemicals Ltd., CEA 6/07 disposed off on 1-9-2010. The appeal lies to the Apex Court under Section 35 L which alone has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the said question. 7. In that view of the matter, the appeal is rejected as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the Revenue to approach the Apex Court.