Unjust enrichment and factual duty disputes did not raise a referable question of law under Section 35G(1).

Questions challenging refund, duty liability and the bar of unjust enrichment were treated as fact-bound rather than as referable questions of law under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that the legal position on unjust enrichment is settled where payment was not made finally and unconditionally, and that the applicants were in substance disputing evidentiary appreciation and factual findings on whether duty had been discharged on the tobacco in question. On that basis, no referable question of law arose and the reference application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the questions framed by the applicants gave rise to any referable question of law under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The application concerned challenge to the Tribunal's earlier findings on refund, duty liability, and the effect of the bar of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal held that the legal position on unjust enrichment in cases where payment was not made finally and unconditionally stood settled, and that the applicants' questions essentially assailed the Tribunal's appreciation of evidence and factual conclusions regarding whether duty had been discharged on the tobacco in question. Such matters did not constitute questions of law for reference.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose, and the reference application was rejected.

---