Interpretation of "manufacturer" under Central Excise law treated as a referable question of law

Interpretation of the statutory term "manufacturer" under the Central Excise Act, 1944 was treated as a referable question of law because the dispute turned on whether the appellant could be denied refund after authorising another concern to manufacture on its behalf under Rule 57F(4) and Rule 57F(13) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As the controversy depended on construction of the definition in Section 2(f), the Tribunal was directed to state the case and refer the formulated question of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the question of law proposed by the applicant arose for reference to the Tribunal, particularly on the interpretation of the term "manufacturer" under the Central Excise Act.

Analysis: The application sought a reference on whether the Tribunal was correct in denying refund on the footing that the appellant could not be treated as a manufacturer under Rule 57F(4) and Rule 57F(13) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, despite authorisation granted to another concern to manufacture on its behalf. The matter was found to involve interpretation of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which defines "manufacturer", and was therefore treated as raising a question of law fit for reference.

Conclusion: The question of law was held to arise for consideration and the Tribunal was directed to refer it.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded, and the Tribunal was required to state the case and refer the formulated question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dispute turns on the interpretation of a statutory definition central to the controversy, the question constitutes a referable question of law.

---