https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82514 A reference under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act lies only on a genuine question of law arising from the Tribunal's order. Questions not raised in the appeal, issues already governed by settled Supreme Court authority, and disputes that are purely factual do not justify reference. The alleged misreading of a co-noticee's statement failed because it was neither pleaded below nor shown to arise from the order. Questions on corroboration, confession, and accomplice evidence were covered by binding precedent and already considered. Reliance on D. Bhoormull also failed because it distinguishes confiscation from personal penalty and burden of proof. The reference application was not maintainable on merits. en-us Fri, 12 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:24:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82514 A reference under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act lies only on a genuine question of law arising from the Tribunal's order. Questions not raised in the appeal, issues already governed by settled Supreme Court authority, and disputes that are purely factual do not justify reference. The alleged misreading of a co-noticee's statement failed because it was neither pleaded below nor shown to arise from the order. Questions on corroboration, confession, and accomplice evidence were covered by binding precedent and already considered. Reliance on D. Bhoormull also failed because it distinguishes confiscation from personal penalty and burden of proof. The reference application was not maintainable on merits. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 12 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82514