Reference jurisdiction requires a real question of law; factual disputes over protest payments and different procedures are not referable.

Reference jurisdiction under Section 35-G(1) is confined to questions of law arising from the appellate order. Where the real dispute turns on whether duty was paid under protest, and that conclusion depends on the documents, the accepted classification list, and non-compliance with the prescribed protest procedure, no referable question of law arises. Earlier decisions on payment under protest are not binding where protest against classification and procedural requirements were established on different facts. A mere failure to follow an earlier decision on materially different facts does not amount to discrimination. The application for reference was therefore rightly refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the questions sought to be referred under Section 35-G(1) arose out of the Tribunal's appellate order and disclosed any referable question of law. (ii) Whether the Tribunal had wrongly discriminated by not following earlier decisions dealing with payment under protest.

Issue (i): The reference jurisdiction was confined to questions of law arising out of the appellate order. The Tribunal found that the real controversy was whether duty had been paid under protest, which depended on the facts, the documents on record, the accepted classification list, and the absence of the prescribed protest procedure. On those facts, the Tribunal had already held that the payment was not made under protest.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose on this issue.

Issue (ii): The earlier authorities relied upon were examined and found distinguishable because, in those cases, protest against classification and the prescribed procedural requirements were established, whereas in the present matter no objection to classification was taken and the procedure under Rule 173-B(3) was not followed. A mere failure to apply an earlier decision on different facts does not amount to discrimination.

Conclusion: The complaint of discrimination was unfounded and the earlier decisions were inapplicable.

Final Conclusion: The application for reference was rightly refused, as the matters raised did not warrant a statement of case for the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference lies only on a question of law arising from the order under challenge, and an earlier decision is not binding where the factual matrix and procedural compliance are materially different.

---