Cenvat declaration and Rule 57H credit disputes held fact-bound, with no referable question of law arising.

Rule 57H credit depended on the Assistant Commissioner's factual satisfaction, so a claim for inputs not lying in stock and already used before permission was treated as fact-bound and not a referable question of law. Rule 57G required inputs and final products to be specified clearly in the declaration, but did not require the product-wise raw material listing suggested; the issue was likewise held to turn on the declaration framework and facts. The reference application therefore failed because no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether permission under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be granted in respect of inputs not lying in stock and used before seeking permission; (ii) whether a declaration filed for one brand of goods was valid for other brands of goods differently known in trade.

Issue (i): whether permission under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be granted in respect of inputs not lying in stock and used before seeking permission.

Analysis: The entitlement to credit under Rule 57H depended on the Assistant Commissioner's satisfaction on the facts of the case. The question raised was therefore dominated by factual determination, with any legal element being only remote. It did not present a disputable question of law requiring reference.

Conclusion: The proposed question did not warrant reference and was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether a declaration filed for one brand of goods was valid for other brands of goods differently known in trade.

Analysis: Rule 57G required the inputs and final products to be specified and clearly described in the declaration. The rule did not require product-wise listing of raw materials in the manner suggested. The issue turned on the facts and the existing declaration framework, not on any substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The proposed question did not involve any referable question of law.

Final Conclusion: The reference application failed because both proposed questions were found to be fact-bound and no referable question of law arose.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference to the High Court is not warranted where the proposed issue is primarily factual or does not raise a disputable question of law, even if a point of law is incidentally involved.

---