Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an application made under Section 35 (G) (3) of Central Excise Act made by the Commissioner Central Excise consequent upon the dismissal of their reference application for making a reference to this Court by the Tribunal (CEGAT), dated 9-11-1996, passed in Reference Case No. E/ref/110-96-NB-In E/a/no. 419/95-NB which in turn arise out of CEGAT final order passed in Appeal No. E/419/95-NB, dated 6-5-1996/7-5-1996. ( 2. ) IN the opinion of Tribunal, since no question of law arises out of the order passed by Tribunal referred supra and hence, the application made by the petitioner (applicant) was rejected. ( 3. ) FOLLOWING question of law is proposed by the petitioner/applicant -i. e. Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise which according to petitioner does arise out of the impugned appellate order and need to be referred to this Court by the Tribunal on merits: "whether multilayer co-extruded film which is used for safeguarding the tread rubber, an intermediate product in the manufacture of tyre, would be eligible for benefit under Rule 57-A as an input ?" ( 4. ) ACCORDING to petitioner, the question proposed which is referred supra is a question of law and being referable one, should have been referred to this Court and since the Tribunal committed an error of law in not referring to this Court, the same be called by this Court by directing the Tribunal to refer. ( 5. ) HEARD Shri Vinay Zelawat, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri Tapan Trivedi, learned Counsel for the non-applicant. ( 6. ) LEARNED Counsel for the assessee while supporting the impugned order of Tribunal, in the first place contended that the question proposed does not arise and secondly being a question of fact need not be called. It was also contended by placing reliance on the cases reported in , 1993 (42 )ECC291 (Mad ), 1993 (63 )ELT3 (Mad ), (1993 )I MLJ355 and , 1993 (66 )ELT594 (Cal ) that the issue sought to be urged by the petitioner stands decided by these decisions and therefore, it is neither a question of law much less referable and hence, the petition be dismissed. ( 7. ( 7. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, we are of the view that application deserves to be allowed thereby directing the Tribunal (CEGAT) to refer the question to this Court proposed by the petitioner. ( 8. ) IN our considered opinion, the question proposed by the petitioner is a question of law and being referable one should have been referred to this Court. Firstly, it is not finally decided one way or other by the Apex Court. Secondly, even it does not appear to have been decided one way or other by any other High Court much less by jurisdictional High Court. Thirdly, if at all, it is decided, then it is so by the Tribunal by a decision referred to in the impugned appellate order. In this view of the matter, it does not cease to be a question of law but remains a debatable question of law to be taken note of by the High Court in reference jurisdiction. The Tribunal can not refuse to refer the question on the ground that it is decided by the Tribunal. The decision of Tribunal is binding on the Tribunal but not on the High Court. A reference can be refused if the question proposed stands decided by the Supreme Court or by the jurisdictional High Court. It can not be then regarded as question alive for judicial debate. ( 9. ) IN our opinion, all the decisions on which learned Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance may be good for deciding the question on merits when referred to this Court but none of these decisions directly decide the question proposed. In other words, these decisions may be a guideline to answer the question either way keeping in view the product in question, its utility, use in manufacture of ultimate product but on that ground, this Court at this stage cannot hold that question of law does not arise. ( 10. ) AT this stage, this Court is only concerned with the limited issue as to whether question proposed is a question of law or not and whether it is referable ? In our humble view, it is a question of law and being referable, the same must be referred to this Court by the Tribunal. ( 11. ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of aforesaid discussion, the application is allowed. In our humble view, it is a question of law and being referable, the same must be referred to this Court by the Tribunal. ( 11. ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of aforesaid discussion, the application is allowed. The tribunal is directed to refer the aforementioned question to this Court by drawing statement of case within six months as an outer limit. No costs.