ORDER : The respondent herein is under 100% EoU scheme and is engaged in the manufacture of De-Oiled Cake (DoC) of soyabean, groundnut, mustard and other edible oil seeds which is covered under Section 58 and Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. As far as soyabean is concerned, it falls under Chapter Heading No. 2302.00 and by products Soyabean Solvent Extraction Raw Oil/Crude Oil was under Chapter Heading No. 1503.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. The respondent has been availing the facilities of self-removal procedure and had cleared the by-product Soyabean Solvent Extraction Raw Oil in DTA by availing benefit of Notification No. 8/97 dated 01.03.1997 on the ground that there is no excise duty leviable on the said by-product and has cleared the aforesaid product at nil rate of duty. The Department, however, took the view that Notification No. 13/98 dated 02.06.1998 is applicable, as per which, the respondent was liable to pay duty at the rate of 30 per cent as if this product was manufactured by 100% EoU. This resulted in issuance of as many as six show cause notices with the demand particulars whereof are as under : Show Cause Notice dated Duty Penalty Order-in-Original 28.09.2001 Rs.45,13,508 Rs.10,000 01.10.2001 28.09.2001 Rs.48,47,214 Rs.10,000 01.10.2001 30.10.2001 Rs.40,87,996 Rs.10,000 13.11.2001 30.10.2001 Rs.62,60,871 Rs.10,000 13.11.2001 26.12.2001 Rs.7811 Rs.1000 13.01.2002 28.12.2001 Rs.96,95,865 Rs.20,000 13.01.2002 TOTAL Rs.2,95,13,265 3. The aforesaid demand was affirmed by passing Order-in-Original. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide its Order-in-Appeal dated 26.09.1992 allowed the said appeal holding that by-products Soyabean Solvent Extraction Raw Oil was not covered under 100% EoU scheme and hence tariff rate applicable in DTA which was nil would be applicable to the by-product removed by the respondent. This finding has been upheld by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') as well. It has affirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. After going through the order of the CESTAT, we find that all the aspects of the issue regarding classification are discussed in detail arriving at the aforesaid findings. No question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.