Pure findings of fact cannot support a reference when Tribunal's evidence-based assessment governs duty recomputation and penalty reduction.

A reference under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act is not maintainable where the dispute turns only on appreciation of evidence and factual findings. The commentary explains that the challenge to the Tribunal's fixation of the change in the 'd' factor depended on production figures, statements of the assessee's personnel, and the Tribunal's assessment of those materials, so no referable question of law arose. It also notes that the Tribunal's finding that the change occurred in November 1997, not from 1-10-1997, was supported by the record, and the related recomputation of duty and reduction of penalty were treated as justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revenue's proposed reference under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 arose from a question of law or only from questions of fact; (ii) whether the Tribunal's finding that the change in the 'd' factor took place in November 1997, and not from 1-10-1997, required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the revenue's proposed reference under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 arose from a question of law or only from questions of fact.

Analysis: The reference sought to challenge the factual basis on which the Tribunal had fixed the date of change in the 'd' factor and had directed recomputation of duty. The Court found that the grievance turned on appreciation of the production figures, the statements recorded from the assessee's partner and foreman, and the Tribunal's factual assessment of those materials. On that footing, the proposed reference did not present a referable question of law.

Conclusion: The proposed reference was held to be based only on factual issues and was not maintainable as a question of law.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's finding that the change in the 'd' factor took place in November 1997, and not from 1-10-1997, required interference.

Analysis: The Court examined the production data and found significant fluctuations across months, so the figures did not support the revenue's inference that the change in the 'd' factor had caused an increase in production from October 1997. In the absence of contrary evidence, the statement that the change was effected in the first week of November 1997 was accepted. The Tribunal's view that duty could not be re-determined from 1-10-1997 was therefore treated as justified, and the reduction of penalty was also not found to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's findings were upheld and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The revenue failed to establish any referable legal question or any error in the Tribunal's appreciation of facts, so the demand for reference was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reopen pure findings of fact where the conclusion rests on appreciation of evidence and no substantial question of law arises.

---