Reference applications require a specific question of law; following binding precedent does not justify a challenge.

A reference application under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act was not maintainable where no specific question of law was framed from the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had merely followed binding law declared by the High Court, and a subordinate tribunal cannot be faulted for applying prevailing precedent. On that basis, the Revenue had no valid ground to seek a reference, and the application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's reference application under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was maintainable when no specific question of law was framed and the Tribunal had merely followed a binding High Court decision.

Analysis: The application did not formulate any question of law arising from the Tribunal's order. The grievance was only that the Tribunal had followed an of the Delhi High Court. A tribunal subordinate to a High Court is bound to apply the law declared by the High Court and the Supreme Court. On that footing, no valid basis existed to seek a reference merely because the Tribunal applied the prevailing law.

Conclusion: The reference application was not maintainable and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed because no referable question of law was shown and the Tribunal's reliance on binding precedent could not be treated as an error warranting reference.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference under Section 35G(1) lies only where a specific question of law arises from the order, and a subordinate tribunal cannot be faulted for following binding precedent of the High Court.

---