Modvat input exclusion and suppression were treated as factual issues, so no question of law arose for reference.

Full declaration of the inputs had been made under the Modvat scheme, and the Tribunal treated the dispute over whether particular inputs fell within an excluded category under Rule 57A as a factual question depending on the evidence in each case. The alleged suppression for invoking the extended period of limitation was also regarded as turning on the factual record. On that basis, no question of law was found to arise from the Tribunal's order, and the reference application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the questions raised on declaration of inputs, exclusion under the Modvat scheme, and invocation of the extended period of limitation gave rise to any question of law warranting reference.

Analysis: Full declaration of the inputs had been made. Whether a particular input fell within an excluded category under Rule 57A depended on the facts of each case and on appreciation of facts and evidence. The determination of such factual matters did not amount to a question of law, and the existence of suppression was also treated as a matter turning on the factual record.

Conclusion: No question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and the reference application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's attempt to obtain a reference failed because the controversy was held to be factual rather than legal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the dispute turns on whether declared inputs fall within an excluded category under the Modvat scheme, the issue is one of fact and evidence, not a question of law.

---