Duty paid under protest compliance: gate pass endorsement was sufficient, and no referable question of law arose

Failure to endorse RT. 12 returns was held not fatal where the gate passes were endorsed as duty paid under protest under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal relied on its earlier unreversed decisions, which had already accepted gate pass endorsement as sufficient compliance, and treated that view as governing the issue. On that basis, the reference court held that no referable question of law arose merely because the Tribunal applied the same settled principle to the facts, and the reference application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether failure to endorse the RT. 12 returns, despite endorsement on the gate passes, prevented the respondent from being treated as having paid duty under protest under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, and whether any question of law arose from the Tribunal's reliance on its earlier decisions.

Analysis: The Tribunal had followed its earlier decisions holding that endorsement of the gate passes as duty paid under protest was sufficient and that omission to make the corresponding endorsement on RT. 12 returns was not fatal. The order under reference was itself based on those earlier rulings, which had not been shown to have been reversed or displaced. In that situation, the reference court treated the earlier Tribunal decisions as still governing the field and held that no referable question of law arose merely because the Tribunal applied the same settled view to the present facts.

Conclusion: No question of law arose from the impugned order, and the Reference Application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later Tribunal order merely follows earlier unreversed Tribunal decisions on the same legal issue, no referable question of law arises for reference.

---