Referable question of law cannot survive once settled, even if the same excise issue is pending elsewhere.

Pendency of the same excise issue before another forum does not, by itself, create a referable question of law once the point has already been concluded by a binding decision. In proceedings seeking reference under Section 35G(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 concerning denial of Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Court held that a settled question cannot be revived merely because it remains pending elsewhere. The request for reference was therefore not maintainable and was rejected, as no substantial referable question of law survived.

---

---

Issues: Whether pendency of the same issue before a higher forum makes out a referable question of law for directing reference under the excise law.

Analysis: The application sought reference under Section 35G(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on a question arising from denial of Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Court held that once the point has been concluded by a decision, it ceases to give rise to a referable question of law. Mere pendency of the same issue before the Division Bench does not alter the legal position or create a fresh referable question.

Conclusion: The request for reference was not maintainable and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The application for directing reference was declined because no substantial referable question of law survived.

Ratio Decidendi: Pendency of the same issue before another forum does not, by itself, create a referable question of law when the point has already been concluded by a binding decision.

---