Reference application requires a formulated question of law and cannot be used to reopen factual disputes.

A reference application under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act was held not maintainable where no specific question of law was formulated for reference. The applicant was in substance seeking to reopen factual findings on the merits, including alleged compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and payment of duty under protest. As the application did not present a genuine referable question of law, and factual disputes cannot be converted into a reference proceeding, no question fit for reference to the High Court was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether a reference application under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act was maintainable when no specific question of law was formulated and the applicant sought to challenge factual findings on merits.

Analysis: The application did not clearly state the question of law proposed for reference, nor was any formulated question set out in the papers filed. The material placed before the Tribunal showed that the applicant was substantially contesting the Tribunal's findings on merits and facts, including the alleged compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and payment of duty under protest. Such contentious factual issues are not referable in a reference application, which is confined to a genuine question of law.

Conclusion: No question of law fit for reference to the High Court was made out, and the reference application was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference application must clearly formulate a referable question of law, and it cannot be used to reopen factual disputes or challenge findings on merits.

---