https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82316 A reference under Section 35G was held maintainable only where a genuine question of law arose from the order sought to be challenged. The Tribunal found that the Revenue had misstated the factual basis of the earlier appeal and attempted to recast the controversy as a mere Rule 173H contravention, while the prior decision had turned on the inapplicability of Rule 173H and the absence of proved fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty. Because the proposed question did not arise from the record and distorted the issue actually decided, the reference application was not maintainable and the connected cross-objections also failed. en-us Mon, 23 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jul 2011 12:59:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82316 A reference under Section 35G was held maintainable only where a genuine question of law arose from the order sought to be challenged. The Tribunal found that the Revenue had misstated the factual basis of the earlier appeal and attempted to recast the controversy as a mere Rule 173H contravention, while the prior decision had turned on the inapplicability of Rule 173H and the absence of proved fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty. Because the proposed question did not arise from the record and distorted the issue actually decided, the reference application was not maintainable and the connected cross-objections also failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82316