Reference lies only on a question of law, not factual findings or unraised cross-examination objections.

A reference application is maintainable only where the Tribunal's order gives rise to a question of law; findings based on evidence and factual inference are not referable unless perverse or unsupported by evidence. Questions concerning benami arrangement, clandestine manufacture, tobacco quantity, and duty evasion were all factual in nature and did not create a referable legal issue. The argument on denial of cross-examination also failed because it had neither been raised in appeal nor decided in the Tribunal's order, and a point not raised or decided cannot be referred.

---

---

Issues: Whether a reference application was maintainable when the questions proposed were based on facts and no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, including the claim that denial of cross-examination of witnesses raised a referable legal issue.

Analysis: A reference lies only where a question of law arises from the Tribunal's order. Findings based on appreciation of evidence and factual inferences are not open to reference unless they are unsupported by evidence or perverse. The proposed questions concerning benami arrangement, clandestine manufacture, quantity of tobacco used, and evasion of duty were all founded on facts. The contention regarding denial of cross-examination could not assist the applicants because that point had neither been raised during the appeal nor considered in the Tribunal's order, and a question not raised or decided in the order does not arise from it for reference purposes.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and the reference application was not maintainable.

---