Reference jurisdiction limits block questions not arising from the Tribunal order and matters already covered by precedent.

Reference jurisdiction was confined to questions of law actually arising from the Tribunal's order, so proposed issues that related to items not dealt with in that order were not entertainable and, where appropriate, were left to rectification proceedings. Questions on ream labels, oxygen gas, soldering stick, dissolved acetylene gas, refractory bricks and cement were rejected because they were either not raised before the Tribunal, covered by binding precedent, or already treated as used in manufacture within the explanation to Rule 57A. As no proposed ground disclosed a referable question of law arising from the impugned order, the reference applications could not be entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the questions proposed in the reference applications disclosed referable questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order, and whether they were fit to be referred to the High Court.

Analysis: The proposed questions relating to items not specified in Notification No. 177/86 were held not to arise from the Tribunal's order and were treated as matters for rectification of mistake. The question relating to ream labels was rejected because the point had not been raised before the Tribunal and the item was treated as used in manufacture within the scope of the explanation to Rule 57A. The questions concerning oxygen gas, soldering stick and dissolved acetylene gas were held to be covered by existing precedent and therefore not fit for reference. The items referred to in another question were found not to be the same as the items actually dealt with by the Tribunal, so that question also did not arise from the impugned order. The question relating to refractory bricks and cement was also covered by the Larger Bench decision relied upon by the Tribunal. The remaining objection, based on omission of several other items from the Tribunal's discussion, was rejected because the reference jurisdiction extended only to items actually decided in the impugned order.

Conclusion: No referable question of law was made out on any of the proposed grounds; the reference applications were not entertainable.

---