Question of law in reference jurisdiction fails where challenge concerns only appreciation and sufficiency of evidence.

Delay in filing the reference application was condoned on the facts placed before the Tribunal, but the proposed reference failed because it challenged only the Tribunal's appreciation and sufficiency of evidence in setting aside penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Such issues do not raise a question of law for reference jurisdiction, so the application was not maintainable on the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the reference application should be condoned, and whether the reference application raised any question of law.

Analysis: The delay was condoned on the facts placed before the Tribunal. On the merits, the proposed reference questioned the Tribunal's setting aside of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, but the challenge was directed only against appreciation of evidence and sufficiency of evidence. Such matters do not give rise to a question of law for reference jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, but the reference application was not maintainable as no question of law arose.

---