Rate of duty questions are not referable under Section 35G(1); general consequential-benefit language is not a refund order.

Questions relating to the rate of duty were held to fall outside reference jurisdiction under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, so the reference application was not maintainable and was rejected. The Tribunal's statement that consequential benefits would follow in accordance with law was treated as a general observation and not as a specific direction granting refund. Accordingly, no impermissible refund order was found in the Tribunal's decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reference application was maintainable when the proposed questions related to the rate of duty, and whether the Tribunal had granted any refund by allowing consequential benefits.

Analysis: The points sought to be referred were held to concern the rate of duty, which falls outside the scope of reference under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal's observation that consequential benefits would follow in accordance with law was not treated as a direction granting an impermissible refund.

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

Final Conclusion: The requested reference was declined on the ground that the questions proposed were excluded from reference jurisdiction, and no unlawful refund direction was found in the Tribunal's order.

Ratio Decidendi: Questions relating to the rate of duty are not referable under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and a general direction for consequential benefits in accordance with law does not amount to a specific refund order.

---