Reference to state a case cannot be refused where a genuine question of law arises from the Tribunal's order.

A reference authority cannot refuse to state a case merely because the proposed question is imperfectly framed or appears obvious if a genuine question of law arises out of the order. A question of law arises where it was raised and decided, raised though not decided, or not raised but decided. On that basis, the Tribunal was not justified in declining reference, because the real issue concerned the Collector's exercise of power under Rule 180 of the Central Excise Rules and its interaction with the industrial licensing framework. The reference application therefore succeeded, and the Tribunal was required to draw up a statement of case on the formulated question of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to state a case on the ground that the questions proposed were not properly framed and were obvious, and whether a question of law arose out of the Tribunal's order so as to require a reference.

Analysis: A question of law arises out of an order when it has been raised and decided, or raised though not decided, or not raised but decided. The Tribunal cannot decline reference merely because the proposed question is imperfectly framed; it must identify the real question involved if one arises from the order. The fact that the Tribunal regarded the issue as obvious did not justify refusal to state a case, especially when the controversy concerned the scope of the Collector's power under Rule 180 of the Central Excise Rules and its interaction with the industrial licensing framework.

Conclusion: The refusal to state a case was not justified, and the question whether power under Rule 180 of the Central Excise Rules had been correctly exercised by the Collector was held to arise out of the Tribunal's order.

Final Conclusion: The reference application succeeded and the Tribunal was required to draw up a statement of case on the formulated question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference authority cannot refuse to state a case merely because the proposed question is inelegantly framed or appears straightforward if a genuine question of law arises out of the order under challenge.

---