Reference on question of law fails where limitation turns on proved suppression and unadjudicated issues cannot be referred.

A reference under Section 35G lies only where a genuine question of law arises from the decision under challenge. On limitation, the Tribunal relied on its factual finding of suppression of sales and held that the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A was legally invocable, leaving no independent legal issue for reference. The objection that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the matter involved rate of duty or classification failed because the dispute before the appellate forums was confined to limitation. A proposed reference on Rule 10(1)(a) also failed because that issue had not been adjudicated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether any question of law arose for reference on the applicability of the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in relation to the extended period of limitation; (ii) Whether the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to deal with the appeal on the ground that it involved rate of duty or classification; (iii) Whether a reference could be made on the applicability of Rule 10(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules.

Issue (i): Whether any question of law arose for reference on the applicability of the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in relation to the extended period of limitation

Analysis: The Tribunal proceeded on its earlier factual finding that there had been suppression of sales by the applicant. On that basis, it had held that the Department was entitled in law to invoke the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A. The challenge raised before the Tribunal did not disclose any independent question of law arising from that factual determination.

Conclusion: No question of law arose on this issue, and the request for reference on this point failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to deal with the appeal on the ground that it involved rate of duty or classification

Analysis: The dispute before the lower appellate authority and before the Tribunal was confined to limitation. The question of rate of duty or classification was not in issue before the appellate authority and was not the subject of the departmental appeal. In those circumstances, the objection to jurisdiction was not legally tenable at the stage of the reference application.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether a reference could be made on the applicability of Rule 10(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules

Analysis: The proposed question relating to Rule 10(1)(a) had not arisen for consideration in the proceedings before the Tribunal. A reference under Section 35G could not be sought on a point that was never adjudicated.

Conclusion: No reference could be made on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal found that none of the proposed questions disclosed a referable question of law, and the reference application was therefore rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference under Section 35G lies only on a question of law that actually arises from the decision under challenge; findings confined to limitation on proved suppression of facts, or issues never adjudicated, do not furnish a referable question of law.

---