Modvat credit and minor input-description discrepancies: no referable question of law arose, so the revenue's reference failed.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the declared input description and sub-heading contained minor discrepancies, as the record showed a declaration had been filed and the issue was already covered by settled precedent. A reference to the High Court is maintainable only where the order raises a debatable question of law; no such referable question arose here because the Tribunal had already resolved the substantive issue. The Revenue's request for reference was therefore rejected as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's request for reference to the High Court was maintainable on the question whether Modvat credit could be denied for absence of declaration or for minor variation in the description and sub-heading of declared inputs.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the case was not one of complete absence of declaration but of a declared input with minor discrepancies in description and sub-heading. It further held that the Tribunal had already decided the substantive issue by following settled precedent, and that a reference lies only on a problematic or debatable question of law arising from the order. Since the issue of minor procedural variation affecting substantive Modvat benefit had already been treated as settled, no referable question arose.

Conclusion: The request for reference was not maintainable and was rejected.

---