No question of law arose where goods classification was already settled by binding precedent, so the reference rejection stood.

The High Court held that no referable question of law arose where the Revenue's challenge merely sought to reopen the classification of goods already concluded by an earlier binding Division Bench decision. The Tribunal had found the dispute covered by precedent, and that position had also been accepted in the appeal proceedings. In that setting, the issue was treated as a factual re-agitation rather than a fresh legal controversy. The Tribunal was therefore justified in rejecting the Revenue's reference application, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the Revenue's reference application on the ground that no question of law arose, the dispute being covered by an earlier Division Bench decision and involving only a factual re-agitation of the classification of the goods sold.

Analysis: The issue raised by the Revenue was not whether the dealer's exemption claim under section 41 was maintainable in the abstract, but whether the goods sold were classifiable under the relevant schedule entry. The Tribunal had recorded that the dispute was covered by the earlier binding decision of the Court, and that position had also been accepted in the appeal proceedings. In these circumstances, the High Court found that the Revenue was seeking to reopen a factual matter already concluded by precedent. As the controversy did not give rise to any surviving question of law, the rejection of the reference application was proper.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's rejection of the reference application was upheld, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---