Substantial question of law requires more than rewording facts where the inputs declaration was already found to be filed.

A reference application under Rule 57G failed because the Tribunal had already found that the required inputs declaration was filed and that the department knew the relevant facts. On that factual basis, merely rephrasing the grievance as a question of law did not create a substantial question of law or show non-application of mind. The matter was distinguished from a refund dispute under Section 11B, since this case concerned an actual declaration rather than an informal communication. The reference application was therefore not entertained and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reference application disclosed any substantial question of law in relation to the filing of declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded a specific finding that a declaration relating to the inputs had in fact been filed and that the department was aware of the relevant facts. In that situation, the attempted reframing of the question did not show any non-application of mind by the Tribunal or give rise to a substantial question of law. The reference application was also contrasted with a prior case concerning a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, but the present matter involved an actual declaration and not merely an informal communication.

Conclusion: The reference application did not merit consideration and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Tribunal has returned a clear factual finding that the requisite declaration was filed, a reference cannot be maintained by rewording the issue into a supposed question of law.

---