Reference maintainability turns on whether the proposed question arose from the Tribunal's order, not on later rule deletion.

A reference application cannot be entertained on a question that did not arise from the Tribunal's order. The proposed reference concerned the effect of deletion of clause (ii) of Rule 57H(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, but the Tribunal had decided the matter only on the grounds actually argued before it on Modvat credit eligibility under Rule 57H. Because the later deletion issue was neither raised nor considered by the Tribunal, it did not form part of the order and the reference was not maintainable on that question.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reference application could be entertained when the question proposed did not arise from the Tribunal's order.

Analysis: The question sought to be referred concerned the effect of deletion of clause (ii) of Rule 57H(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by Notification No. 20/89 (N.T.), dated 05-05-1989. The Tribunal had decided the matter on the basis of the grounds actually urged before it regarding eligibility of Modvat credit under Rule 57H. The proposed question on the later deletion of clause (ii) was neither argued nor considered by the Tribunal, and therefore did not arise out of its order.

Conclusion: The reference was not maintainable on the question proposed.

---