Payment under protest is a question of fact, not a referable question of law under excise reference provisions.

A dispute over whether duty was paid under protest, supported by a protest letter and subsequent approval of the classification list, was treated as a factual issue rather than a legal one. The Tribunal held that under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, only a question of law arising from the final order can be referred to the High Court. Because the controversy turned on the factual character of the payment and not on interpretation of law, no referable question of law arose and the reference application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the question proposed by the Revenue arose as a question of law fit for reference to the High Court, or was merely a question of fact concerning payment of duty under protest after approval of the classification list.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the issue sought to be referred depended on whether the assessee had paid duty under protest, as evidenced by the protest letter and the subsequent classification list approval. Under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, only a question of law arising out of the final order could be referred to the High Court. The dispute before the Tribunal turned on the factual character of the payment and not on any legal principle requiring reference.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose, and the reference application was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A dispute confined to whether duty was paid under protest is a question of fact and does not constitute a question of law referable under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---