Referable question of law fails when unchallenged findings on limitation and notice competence are left intact.

A reference under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act is not maintainable where the Tribunal has already recorded unchallenged findings that the show cause notice was time-barred and that the notice-issuing authority lacked competence for the relevant period. Because the Revenue did not dispute those findings, the proposed questions did not arise as referable questions of law from the Tribunal's order. The request for reference was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a reference under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was maintainable on the questions proposed by the Revenue when the Tribunal had recorded findings on limitation and competency of the notice issuing authority that were not challenged.

Analysis: The Tribunal had set aside the demand on the grounds that the show cause notice was issued beyond the permissible period and that the Assistant Commissioner was not competent to issue it for the relevant period. Those findings were not questioned by the Revenue. In that situation, the proposed questions did not arise from the Tribunal's order as referable questions of law.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and the request for reference was rejected.

---