Reference under excise law fails where the dispute concerns duty rate and exemption notification interpretation, requiring appeal instead.

A reference application under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, read with Section 35H, is not maintainable where the underlying order concerns the rate of excise duty and the interpretation of an exemption notification. Such questions fall within the appellate route under Section 35L(b), not the reference jurisdiction under Section 35G. Section 35H is dependent on a valid Section 35G application and cannot be invoked independently when the reference itself is incompetent.

---

---

Issues: Whether a reference application under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, read with Section 35H of that Act, was maintainable where the order sought to be referred related to the rate of duty of excise and the interpretation of an exemption notification.

Analysis: The application sought reference of questions arising from an order concerning the determination of duty rate and the interpretation of an exemption notification. Such matters were held to fall outside the scope of Section 35G, for which the proper remedy was an appeal under Section 35L(b). Section 35H was treated as dependent upon a valid application under Section 35G and could not be invoked where the underlying reference itself was not maintainable.

Conclusion: The reference application was held to be incompetent and not maintainable.

---