Reference to High Court requires a genuine unresolved question of law; settled issues and procedural lapses are insufficient.

A reference to the High Court under the Central Excise Act is maintainable only where the proposed question of law is real and unresolved. A question already settled by prior decisions, or one framed only on an alleged procedural lapse, does not provide a valid basis for reference. The Tribunal may reject such an application as meritless where no surviving legal controversy exists and the reference does not satisfy the statutory requirement for formulation of a proper question of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's reference application seeking formulation of a question of law for the High Court was maintainable and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to reject it as meritless.

Analysis: The question proposed for reference did not disclose any surviving legal controversy, as the underlying issue had already been settled by earlier decisions and the Tribunal had acted within the jurisdiction conferred by the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder. A reference under Section 35G(1) must be framed in accordance with the statutory requirement, and a question predicated on an alleged procedural lapse was not accepted as a valid basis for reference.

Conclusion: The reference application was held to be without merit and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference to the High Court under the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not maintainable where the proposed question is frivolous or the issue has already been settled, and the Tribunal may reject such a reference.

---