https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72449 Section 130(1) permits reference only on a question of law arising from the Tribunal's order, and a challenge confined to appreciation of circumstantial evidence or factual findings is not referable. The proposed reference was rejected because it attacked the Tribunal's factual conclusions in customs adjudication rather than any interpretation of the Customs Act. The Tribunal had placed the burden on the department, considered the circumstantial material, and applied the settled distinction between adjudication proceedings and criminal trials. The omission to mention clause (a) or (b) of Section 112 was treated as immaterial because the ingredients of Section 112(b) had been examined. The reliance on a Madras High Court decision was also rejected as the same legal ratio had effectively been considered. en-us Tue, 10 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 May 2011 16:21:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72449 Section 130(1) permits reference only on a question of law arising from the Tribunal's order, and a challenge confined to appreciation of circumstantial evidence or factual findings is not referable. The proposed reference was rejected because it attacked the Tribunal's factual conclusions in customs adjudication rather than any interpretation of the Customs Act. The Tribunal had placed the burden on the department, considered the circumstantial material, and applied the settled distinction between adjudication proceedings and criminal trials. The omission to mention clause (a) or (b) of Section 112 was treated as immaterial because the ingredients of Section 112(b) had been examined. The reliance on a Madras High Court decision was also rejected as the same legal ratio had effectively been considered. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 10 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72449