Reasonableness of delayed notional credit under Rule 57B was treated as a factual issue, not a referable question of law.

Delayed availment of higher notional credit under Rule 57B was treated as a factual issue, not a question of statutory interpretation. The challenge concerned only the timing of taking differential credit, while substantive eligibility to the credit was not in dispute. The time taken had to be judged on the facts and by a standard of reasonableness; on those facts, availing the credit after about three months did not raise any substantial question of law for reference. The controversy was therefore confined to factual reasonableness, leaving the Tribunal's allowance of credit undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Reference Application raised a question of law warranting reference to the High Court on the issue of delayed availment of higher notional credit under Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, with reference to Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The Reference Application challenged only the timing of availment of differential higher notional credit, not the substantive eligibility to the credit. The time within which the credit was taken had to be judged on the facts of the case and on the standard of reasonableness. In the circumstances, the later availment within about three months could not be treated as raising any substantial question of law. Rule 57B was viewed as enabling the grant of notional credit where covered by the notification, and the dispute was held to be factual rather than one of statutory interpretation.

Conclusion: No question of law arose for reference, and the Reference Application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The controversy was treated as one of factual reasonableness of the time taken to avail credit, not as a referable legal issue, leaving the Tribunal's earlier allowance of credit undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the dispute concerns only whether credit was taken within a reasonable time on the facts of the case, and not the substantive eligibility to credit, no referable question of law arises.

---