Maintainability of reference application fails where no real question of law arises and Tribunal precedent remains binding.

A reference application under Modvat credit principles was not maintainable where the applicant only disputed an earlier Tribunal view and failed to show any real question of law arising from the order. The record disclosed no rate of duty or valuation issue, and the department did not establish that the earlier decision had been taken in reference before a higher court or otherwise shown to be under challenge. Tribunal decisions remained binding on lower authorities, so mere non-acceptance of that precedent did not create a referable question. The application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reference application was maintainable and whether any question of law arose for reference on the issue of Modvat credit under Rule 57D.

Analysis: The application proceeded on the basis that the Tribunal had followed an earlier Bench decision on rejected dry cell batteries and Modvat credit. The record showed that the dispute did not involve any rate of duty or valuation issue and that the department had not shown that the earlier decision had been taken in reference before the High Court. The mere fact that the department had not accepted the earlier decision did not make the legal questions referable. Tribunal decisions were binding on lower authorities, and the absence of any pleaded or established pending reference or appellate challenge meant that no referable question of law was made out.

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

Ratio Decidendi: A reference application cannot be entertained merely because the department disagrees with an earlier Tribunal decision; unless a real question of law arising from the order is shown, and a pending superior-court reference is established where relevant, the application fails.

---