Redemption fine and penalty quantum based on factual appreciation does not raise a referable question of law.

The Tribunal held that the challenge to the reduced redemption fine and penalty turned on appreciation of evidence and the totality of surrounding facts, including alleged deliberate infraction, awareness of restriction, excess weight, and the amount of penalty. Those matters were treated as factual determinations already recorded by the adjudicating authority and the Tribunal. The quantum of redemption fine and penalty, where fixed on facts and evidence, was not a referable question of law. The reference application was therefore not maintainable and the request to refer the matter to the High Court was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reduction of redemption fine and penalty raised any referable question of law, or whether the application merely sought reconsideration of findings based on facts and quantum.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the impugned order rested on appreciation of evidence and totality of facts and circumstances. The objections regarding deliberate infraction, awareness of restriction, alleged excess weight, and the extent of penalty were treated as factual determinations already recorded by the adjudicating authority and the Tribunal. It was further held that the quantum of redemption fine and penalty is a matter of fact and not a question of law fit for reference.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose and the reference application was not maintainable on the grounds urged.

Final Conclusion: The request to refer the questions to the High Court was rejected because the impugned order involved factual appreciation and the challenge to the reduced fine and penalty did not disclose any question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: The quantum of redemption fine and penalty, when determined on appreciation of evidence and surrounding facts, does not by itself give rise to a question of law for reference.

---