Referable question of law absent where Tribunal findings on clandestine removal rested on relevant evidence and were not perverse.

A referable question of law does not arise where the Tribunal's findings on clandestine removal, duty demand and penalties are based on seized records and other relevant material. The Court held that objections attacking those findings were only challenges to appreciation of evidence and factual inference. A finding can generate a legal question only if it is unsupported by evidence, perverse, or based on irrelevant material. Since the Tribunal considered all relevant materials and relied on none that was irrelevant, the reference application failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether any referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order in a reference application challenging findings on clandestine removal, duty demand and penalties.

Analysis: The Tribunal had examined the seized records and the surrounding materials and recorded findings that the documents related to the assessee, supported clandestine production and clearance, and negatived the factual objections raised. The challenge in the reference application attacked those findings as perverse, but the Court held that the objections concerned appreciation of evidence and factual inferences. Findings based on relevant material and supported by evidence do not raise a question of law merely because another view is possible. Only a finding that is without evidence, perverse, or based on irrelevant material can give rise to a legal question. On the record, all relevant materials had been considered and no irrelevant material had been acted upon.

Conclusion: No question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and the reference application failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Findings of fact recorded by the final fact-finding authority, when based on relevant evidence and free from perversity, do not give rise to a referable question of law under the reference jurisdiction.

---