https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93397 A finding resting on appreciation of evidence and allocation of the burden of proof in excise adjudication does not, by itself, create a referable question of law. The Tribunal accepted, on the record, that the assessee had sent goods to job workers under Rule 57F(3) challans for processing, and it evaluated the nature of the goods, the facilities available with the job workers, and whether the Department had proved clandestine removal. Because no independent question of law arose from those factual findings, reference to the High Court was not warranted and the Reference Application was rejected. en-us Wed, 09 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:53:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93397 A finding resting on appreciation of evidence and allocation of the burden of proof in excise adjudication does not, by itself, create a referable question of law. The Tribunal accepted, on the record, that the assessee had sent goods to job workers under Rule 57F(3) challans for processing, and it evaluated the nature of the goods, the facilities available with the job workers, and whether the Department had proved clandestine removal. Because no independent question of law arose from those factual findings, reference to the High Court was not warranted and the Reference Application was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93397