Reference jurisdiction limited to the appellate order; rectification orders and unrelated prior rulings cannot support a referable question.

A reference cannot be based on an order disposing of a rectification application; it must arise from the Tribunal's order on appeal. The Tribunal also held that a question is not referable where it does not arise from the impugned order, even if another Bench decided a different exemption issue involving similar goods. Because the earlier Delhi Bench case concerned a different classification question from the one before the Mumbai Bench, it had no bearing on the reference sought. The application therefore failed in limine for want of a referable question from the order under challenge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a reference could be made from an order disposing of a rectification application. (ii) Whether the question sought to be referred arose from the Tribunal's order when the earlier Delhi Bench decision dealt with a different issue.

Issue (i): Whether a reference could be made from an order disposing of a rectification application.

Analysis: A reference lies from the order disposing of the appeal and not from an order deciding a rectification application. The attempt to raise a question arising only from the rectification order was therefore outside the permissible scope of reference jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The reference on this aspect was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the question sought to be referred arose from the Tribunal's order when the earlier Delhi Bench decision dealt with a different issue.

Analysis: The issue before the Delhi Bench concerned whether a rectangular casserole could be treated as a bowl under the exemption entry, whereas the issue before the Mumbai Bench concerned whether glass plates and bowls capable of oven use remained tableware eligible for exemption. Since the two questions were different, the Delhi Bench ruling had no bearing on the order under challenge and could not be the basis for a reference.

Conclusion: The proposed question did not arise from the Tribunal's order and was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The application failed in limine because no referable question arose from the impugned order and the rectification order could not be the source of a reference.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference cannot be founded on an order disposing of rectification, and a question that does not arise from the order under challenge is not referable merely because another Bench decided a different issue.

---