Reference on question of law refused where MODVAT credit dispute merely challenged final factual findings on use of inputs.

A reference under Section 35G(1) lies only on a genuine question of law arising from the Tribunal's order, not on an attempt to reopen final findings of fact. The Tribunal had examined the use of each input item and found that they were used in or in relation to manufacture of the final product; those factual findings could not be re-agitated through a reference application. As the proposed issue on MODVAT credit depended on contrary assumptions to the Tribunal's findings, no referable question of law arose and the request for reference to the High Court was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether any referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order so as to justify a reference to the High Court under Section 35G(1); and whether the dispute concerning admissibility of MODVAT credit on the specified items was essentially one of fact.

Analysis: Section 35G(1) permits reference only on a question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order and does not function as a further appeal. A reference is not maintainable where the proposed question proceeds on assumptions contrary to the Tribunal's factual findings or merely seeks re-agitation of the factual appreciation of the use of the inputs. The Tribunal had examined the use of each item and recorded findings that they were used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. Such findings of fact attain finality and cannot be reopened through a reference application. The cited authorities did not assist the applicant because they turned on different factual situations.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose, and the request for reference to the High Court was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The application failed because it sought to convert a factual dispute over MODVAT eligibility into a reference under the statutory provision governing questions of law.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference under Section 35G(1) lies only on a genuine question of law arising from the Tribunal's order, not on disputes that are in substance challenges to findings of fact or attempts to reopen concluded factual determinations.

---