Reference maintainable despite partial remand, as the limitation issue under Rule 57-I raised a live question of law.

A reference application under Section 35G was held maintainable even though part of the main appeal had been remanded, because the limitation issue had been finally decided against the assessee and was not disturbed by the remand. The Tribunal also noted that, for Modvat credit recovery under Rule 57-I before 6-10-1988, the rule did not specify the starting point of limitation, and there was conflicting authority on whether time ran from the date credit was taken or from filing of RT 12. On that basis, the limitation question was treated as a live question of law fit for reference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reference application was maintainable despite partial remand in the main appeal, and whether a referable question of law arose on the starting point of limitation for recovery of wrongly taken Modvat credit under Rule 57-I prior to 6-10-1988.

Analysis: The reference was sought under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that although some issues in the appeal had been remanded for de novo adjudication, the limitation issue had been finally decided against the assessee, so the reference application could not be rejected on the ground of remand. It further noted that, for the period before the amendment effective from 6-10-1988, Rule 57-I did not itself specify the starting point of limitation, and there was divergence of decisions on whether the relevant date was the date of taking credit or the date of filing of RT 12. The Tribunal therefore treated the limitation question as a live question of law fit for reference.

Conclusion: The reference application was maintainable and the question of law was held to have arisen for reference to the High Court.

---