Referable question of law requires a Tribunal issue; factual finding on natural loss did not justify reference.

A question can be referred only if it arises from the Tribunal's order, and a contention not raised or considered by the Tribunal cannot be the basis of reference. The Tribunal's deletion of duty and penalty rested on factual appreciation that the resin shortage was satisfactorily explained as natural loss during processing and handling over time. That conclusion was a finding of fact, and in the absence of perversity or lack of material it did not give rise to a referable question of law. The reference petition was therefore not entertainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and whether the Tribunal's finding that the shortage of resin was due to natural loss during processing and handling gave rise to a question of law.

Analysis: A question sought to be referred must arise from the order of the Tribunal and cannot be founded on a contention that was neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it. The Revenue's proposed question was based on an alleged admission of shortage and voluntary payment of duty, but that aspect did not form part of the Tribunal's reasoning. The Tribunal's deletion of duty and penalty was based on a factual appreciation that the shortage had been satisfactorily explained as natural loss during processing and handling over time. Such a conclusion, absent any showing of perversity or lack of material, is a finding of fact and does not by itself generate a referable question of law.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and the reference petition could not be entertained.

Ratio Decidendi: A question of law can be referred only if it arises from the Tribunal's order, and a reasoned finding on shortage based on appreciation of evidence is a finding of fact not giving rise to a referable question of law unless shown to be perverse.

---