Rate of duty dispute bars reference under Section 35G when Tribunal considered exemption notifications and duty classification.

A reference under Section 35G(1) was held not maintainable where the Tribunal's order, though disposing of the appeal on limitation and procedure, had in substance considered the applicability of exemption notifications and a question relating to the rate of duty. In that situation, the proper remedy lay in appeal under Section 35L(b), not reference. The application for condonation of delay also failed because the explanation was vague, lacked particulars about the inter-ministerial process, and did not establish sufficient cause. The delay was therefore not condoned, and the reference application was rejected on both maintainability and limitation grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a reference under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was maintainable when the Tribunal's order, though disposing of the appeal on limitation and procedural grounds, had in substance involved the applicability of exemption notifications and the rate of duty; (ii) whether delay in filing the reference application was liable to be condoned on the ground of sufficient cause.

Issue (i): whether a reference under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was maintainable when the Tribunal's order, though disposing of the appeal on limitation and procedural grounds, had in substance involved the applicability of exemption notifications and the rate of duty.

Analysis: The subject-matter of the Tribunal's order was not confined to a procedural disposal. The order had considered the applicability of Notification No. 99/77-C.E. and Notification No. 153/77-C.E., and the dispute thus related to the determination of a question having relation to the rate of duty. Once the order of the Tribunal involved that question, Section 35G(1) was excluded and the proper remedy lay in appeal under Section 35L(b).

Conclusion: The reference application was not maintainable; it was misconceived.

Issue (ii): whether delay in filing the reference application was liable to be condoned on the ground of sufficient cause.

Analysis: The application for condonation was vague and unsupported by particulars showing when the inter-ministerial reference was made and returned, or how it prevented timely filing. The explanation did not establish sufficient cause, and no special indulgence was available merely because the applicant was the Government.

Conclusion: The delay was not satisfactorily explained and condonation was declined.

Final Conclusion: The reference application failed both on maintainability and on limitation, and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purposes of Sections 35G and 35L, the decisive factor is the subject-matter actually dealt with in the Tribunal's order; if the order itself relates to the rate of duty or value of goods, a reference under Section 35G is barred even where the appeal was disposed of on other grounds such as limitation or procedure.

---