Broad interpretation of rate-of-duty exclusion barred reference despite dismissal for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements.

Section 35G(1) barred a reference where the underlying appeal involved a question relating to the rate of duty of excise, and that bar was not avoided because the impugned order was made for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F. The order refusing to entertain the appeal had to be read with the main dispute, since the Tribunal would still have been required to decide a rate-of-duty question if the pre-deposit bar had not applied. The phrase "having a relation" was treated as broad enough to cover such an order, so the reference application was not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for reference under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 was maintainable when the underlying appeal involved a question relating to the rate of duty of excise and the impugned order arose from non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: Section 35G(1) excludes orders relating, inter alia, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for assessment purposes. The impugned order rejecting the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F could not be viewed in isolation from the main appeal, because if the bar had not operated the Tribunal would still have been required to determine a question concerning the rate of duty. The expression "having a relation" was treated as wide enough to cover such an order.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable and was rejected.

---