Reference on a question of law fails where the issue was not raised and argued before the Tribunal.

A reference under the Central Excise Act can be made only on a question of law that was actually raised and argued before the Tribunal. Because the factual finding that no removal of capital goods had occurred was not challenged before the Tribunal, the questions framed before the High Court did not arise from the Tribunal's order. Applying that settled principle, the court held that no question of law, and certainly no substantial question of law, was made out on the record, so the reference was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether any question of law arose from the Tribunal's order so as to justify calling for a reference under the Central Excise Act.

Analysis: The reference court found that the factual finding of the first appellate authority that there had been no removal of capital goods had not been challenged before the Tribunal. The questions framed before the High Court were therefore not questions that had actually arisen for consideration before the Tribunal. Applying the settled principle that a question of law arising from an order must be one that was raised and argued before the Tribunal, the court held that the present reference did not disclose any such question. The court further held that no substantial question of law arose on the record.

Conclusion: No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arose for reference, and the reference was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference can be made only on a question of law that was raised and argued before the Tribunal; a new question not so raised does not arise from the Tribunal's order.

---