Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an application made by the Revenue (Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs) under Section 35 (H) (I) of Central Excise Act, 1944 for calling reference on the questions proposed by them from the Tribunal which according to the applicant arise out of the order dated 23-3-2000, passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. E/1847/99-NB (DB) and Order No. A/310/2000-NB (DB ). Following questions are proposed by the applicant for being called from the Tribunal: (i) Whether under the facts and circumstances the finding of the first authority i. e. Adjudicating Authority can be disturbed by the appellate authority without appreciating the evidence put forth before the first authority ? (ii) When the CEGAT in its earlier judgment has already held that Modvat credit is not permissible on the endorsed invoices in view of provisions of Rule 57g, is tribunal justified in taking a different stand in above order ? (iii) When the respondent No. 1 had not claimed the Modvat on the basis of dealers invoices before adjudicating authority. Is tribunal justified in permitting the Modvat after perusal the so-called dealers invoice which was not produced before adjudicating authority/commissioner (Appeals) and before giving opportunity to the applicant to offer his comments ? ( 2. ) HEARD Shri Vinay Zelawat, learned Counsel for the applicant Union of India and Shri GM Chafekar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri R. Mukadam for non-applicant No. 1. None for the non-applicant No. 2. ( 3. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, we are of the opinion that the application does not involve any referable question which can be said to arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal. As a consequence, the application is liable to be dismissed. ( 4. ) THE short question that arose before the adjudicating authorities and which eventually came to be decided by the Tribunal was, whether invoices issued by the depot of manufacturer company could be held to be valid documents for claiming Modvat credit? The Tribunal while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee held that it can be claimed. This is what the Tribunal held in Para 5 of the order: Para 5. Heard the rival submissions. We find that the appellants purchased polyester staple fiber from Udaipur depot. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee held that it can be claimed. This is what the Tribunal held in Para 5 of the order: Para 5. Heard the rival submissions. We find that the appellants purchased polyester staple fiber from Udaipur depot. We find that the CBDC clarified that the invoices issued by the depot of the manufacturer are valid documents for taking Modvat credit. We also note that even otherwise the Udaipur depot of M/s. Bongaingoan Refinery and Petrochemicals was registered as dealer on 1-9-94 and since any one who was registered on or before 31-12-94 could issue modvatable invoices. In the circumstances, the invoices issued by the Udaipur depot were valid documents and, therefore, they were valid documents for taking Modvat credit up to 31-12-94. We, therefore, find that the documents on the strength of which Modvat credit was taken by the appellants were valid documents. In the circumstances, we hold that Modvat credit was taken correctly by the appellants. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible in accordance with law to the appellants, (dictated in court) ( 5. ) MERE perusal of aforesaid finding would indicate that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is essentially a question of fact involving no question of law as such. When the Tribunal was satisfied that the documents relied on by the assessee for claiming Modvat credit are genuine and hence, they were held entitled to claim the credit on the strength of these documents. ( 6. ) WE are satisfied that the aforesaid issue does not involve any question of law proposed by the Revenue for being answered by this Court in our reference jurisdiction. In order that question of law should arise it must be shown that it is first decided by the Tribunal as of law and secondly, it must relate to law and not on facts. ( 7. ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of aforesaid discussion, the application fails and is dismissed on the ground that questions of law proposed do not arise out of the case and secondly, they are essentially questions of fact. No costs.