Questions of law test under Gold Control reference provisions failed where issues turned on evidence, panchnama, and statement admissibility.

Questions sought under Section 82B of the Gold (Control) Act were held to be framed from findings of fact and appreciation of evidence, not from referable questions of law. The objection on the panchnama failed because that point had not been urged in the appeal and the document was relied on only as evidence of seizure. The challenge to the Section 108 Customs Act statement also failed because the appellate order found no proof of coercion and treated the statement as admissible. The proposed issue on penalty likewise depended on the overall evidence of guilty knowledge, so the reference application was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the questions sought to be referred under Section 82B of the Gold (Control) Act were questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order, including the evidentiary value of the panchnama, the voluntariness of the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the basis for sustaining penalty under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act.

Analysis: The application sought to convert findings on facts and appreciation of evidence into questions of law. The objection regarding the panchnama did not arise from the Tribunal's order because the point was not urged at the appeal hearing and the panchnama was used only as evidence of seizure. The challenge to the statement under Section 108 was already considered in the appeal order, where no supporting evidence of coercion was found and the statement was treated as admissible. The third question also depended on appreciation of evidence, since the penalty was sustained on the overall material showing guilty knowledge and not on any assumed confession alone.

Conclusion: The proposed questions were not referable questions of law and the reference application was not maintainable.

---