Excise misdeclaration and valuation findings stood, with no referable question of law arising from factual disputes.

Concurrent factual findings in excise matters involving misdeclaration, dual invoicing, classification and valuation will ordinarily not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction unless arbitrariness, mala fides or breach of natural justice is shown. The Court accepted that the Tribunal's reasoning was based on the overall record and not on a fresh ground introduced without notice, so the procedural fairness challenge failed. It also held that questions seeking reappraisal of factual findings on duty demand, classification and valuation did not constitute referable substantial questions of law, and the reference application under Section 35G was rightly refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal's finding affirming the duty demand was vitiated by reliance on a ground not forming part of the show cause notice or the order-in-original, and whether this offended the procedural safeguard against deciding on a ground without opportunity of hearing; (ii) Whether the rejection of the reference application under Section 35G was valid on the ground that the questions raised were factual in nature and related to classification, valuation and determination of duty.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal's finding affirming the duty demand was vitiated by reliance on a ground not forming part of the show cause notice or the order-in-original, and whether this offended the procedural safeguard against deciding on a ground without opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The Tribunal's reasoning was not confined to any single isolated observation on private records or blow-room practice. The record showed a sustained pattern of misdescription of goods, dual sets of invoices, and supporting circumstances from which the Tribunal drew its conclusions. The Court held that the factual basis on which the Tribunal proceeded did not amount to a fresh ground introduced without notice, and the procedural rule relied upon by the petitioner was not breached because the contested observations were made in response to the petitioner's own explanation and formed part of the overall reasoning on the established facts.

Conclusion: The challenge based on violation of procedural fairness failed and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of the reference application under Section 35G was valid on the ground that the questions raised were factual in nature and related to classification, valuation and determination of duty.

Analysis: The Court held that the proposed questions did not disclose referable substantial questions of law. They essentially assailed concurrent factual findings on misdeclaration, quantum of demand, evidentiary appreciation and the effect of the record. Since the dispute concerned classification, valuation and determination of duty, the statutory bar on reference in such matters applied, and the Tribunal was justified in declining to make a reference.

Conclusion: The rejection of the reference application was upheld and was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Court found no ground to interfere either with the Tribunal's affirmance of the duty demand or with its refusal to refer the matter to the High Court, and the writ petitions therefore failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, concurrent factual findings in excise matters involving misdeclaration, classification or valuation will not be disturbed absent arbitrariness, mala fides or breach of natural justice, and questions essentially factual in character do not qualify for reference under the statutory reference provision.

---