Reference on limitation for refund claims failed because the earlier order turned on special facts, not a general legal principle.

Overlapping proposed questions cannot support a reference when they in substance raise only one issue on computation of limitation for refund claims under the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal held that the earlier order was decided on special facts, did not lay down any general principle, and therefore did not give rise to a referable question of law under Section 35G. Any grievance that the earlier decision was relied upon had to be pursued before the appropriate court, not through a reference application. The reference was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the questions proposed by the Revenue arose out of the Tribunal's earlier order so as to justify a reference under Section 35G of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the proposed questions were overlapping and in substance raised only one point, namely, whether limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 should be computed from the date of receipt of the refund claim by the Assistant Collector. It further found that the earlier order had been decided on the special facts of that case, had not laid down any general principle, and therefore did not give rise to a referable question of law. The grievance that the earlier decision had been relied upon was held to be a matter for challenge before the appropriate court and not a proper subject for reference.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and the reference application was not maintainable.

---