Valuation and rate of duty questions fall outside reference jurisdiction under central excise law, making the reference not maintainable.

A reference application under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not maintainable where the proposed questions concern valuation for assessment or the rate of duty. The disputed issues involved inclusion of return freight charges in assessable value and duty liability on fabricated tankers, including the effect of an exemption notification for bodies built and mounted on specified chassis. As these matters related to assessment value and duty rate, they fell outside reference jurisdiction, and the reference applications were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a reference application under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was maintainable where the questions proposed related to inclusion of freight charges in assessable value and the dutiability of fabricated tankers under the exemption notification.

Analysis: The questions framed by the Revenue concerned valuation for assessment under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rate of duty, because they involved inclusion of return freight charges in assessable value and liability to duty on tankers fabricated within the factory. The impugned final order had also considered the applicability of Notification No. 50/94 dated 1-3-1994 granting exemption to bodies built and mounted on specified chassis. Matters relating to the value of goods for assessment and the rate of duty fall outside the scope of reference jurisdiction under Section 35G(1).

Conclusion: The reference applications were not maintainable and were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference application does not lie under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 where the proposed questions relate to valuation for assessment or to the rate of duty of excise.

---