Referable question of law under excise reference jurisdiction fails where the issue is factual or absent from the final order.

A question on whether the declared input "Cabinet" included component parts such as front and rear covers was treated as factual, because it depended on the goods' character and identity in the manufacturing process; it was therefore not a referable question of law under Section 35G. A proposed question on tariff interpretation in the Modvat scheme was also rejected because no tariff-interpretation rule had been applied in the Tribunal's final order, so no question arising from that order was shown. The reference application was rejected for want of any referable question of law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "Cabinet" declared as an input under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be treated as including the component parts of the cabinet for the purpose of reference under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) Whether the rules of interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule could be invoked in the Modvat scheme so as to give rise to a referable question of law.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "Cabinet" declared as an input under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be treated as including the component parts of the cabinet for the purpose of reference under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The question whether the declared input "Cabinet" covered Front Cover, Rear Cover and other components was treated as turning on the factual character of the goods and their identity in the assessee's manufacturing process. A question that depends on such factual determination does not constitute a referable question of law under Section 35G.

Conclusion: The question was held to be a pure question of fact and not referable.

Issue (ii): Whether the rules of interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule could be invoked in the Modvat scheme so as to give rise to a referable question of law.

Analysis: The proposed question was found not to arise from the Tribunal's final order, as no rule of tariff interpretation had been applied by the Bench while deciding the Modvat credit dispute. In the absence of such application, no referable question of law arose on this point.

Conclusion: The question was held not to have arisen out of the final order and was not fit for reference.

Final Conclusion: The reference application failed and was rejected because no referable question of law arose for consideration under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Ratio Decidendi: A question resting on factual determination, or a question that does not arise from the final order, is not referable under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---