Retrospective capital goods notification held clarificatory; settled Tribunal authority left no referable question of law.

Retrospective applicability of Notification No. 11/95-C.E. (N.T.), which included refractories within the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q, was treated as settled by consistent Tribunal authority holding the notification to be clarificatory. Relying on Jindal Strips and later decisions, including Larsen & Toubro, the Tribunal found that no debatable question of law survived for reference. The Revenue's reference application was therefore not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's reference application raised any question of law for reference on the retrospective applicability of Notification No. 11/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 16-3-1995, which included refractories in the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q of the C.E. Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the earlier final order had followed the decision in Jindal Strips and other Tribunal decisions holding that the notification was clarificatory in nature and therefore applicable retrospectively. It also noted that later Tribunal authority, including Larsen & Toubro, had reiterated the same view after referring to a series of earlier decisions. In light of this settled line of authority, the Tribunal held that no debatable question of law survived for reference.

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

Ratio Decidendi: A reference is not warranted where the legal position is already settled by consistent Tribunal authority and the notification in question is held to be clarificatory with retrospective effect.

---