Reference to High Court requires a specific question of law; the refund-date issue under Rule 11 was referred.

In a reference proceeding, only a specific question of law arising from the order and not already covered or merely general in nature is fit to be referred to the High Court. The Tribunal treated one proposed question as too general to constitute a distinct question of law, ignored a cited decision not placed before it in the earlier appeal, and treated an overlapping point as already covered. The surviving issue was consolidated and referred: whether the date of declaration is the relevant date for a refund claim under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

---

---

Issues: Whether the date of declaration is the relevant date for a refund claim under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the reference application raised questions warranting reference to the High Court.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that one question raised only a general discussion and did not give rise to any specific question of law for reference. It further noted that one cited decision had not been placed before the Tribunal in the earlier appeal and therefore was not dealt with. A point overlapping with another question was treated as already covered. The remaining issue was framed in a consolidated form for reference to the High Court.

Conclusion: The question whether the date of declaration would be the relevant date for a refund claim under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was referred to the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The reference application was concluded by directing a reference on the surviving question, while the other proposed questions were not separately referred.

Ratio Decidendi: In a reference proceeding, only a specific question of law arising from the order and not already covered or purely general in nature is fit to be referred to the High Court.

---