https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170549 Only a genuine substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's order could be referred, so factual questions on conscious possession were not referable and the issue on the meaning of possession under the Gold (Control) Act did not survive because it had already been settled by binding precedent. The challenge to the Tribunal's reliance on the criminal court's findings required limited reconsideration in light of the applicable guidelines on the effect of criminal proceedings in confiscation matters, so the third question was reframed and referred to the High Court. The reference application was therefore allowed only in part, with the remaining proposed questions rejected or treated as not surviving. en-us Wed, 26 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jun 2015 11:46:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170549 Only a genuine substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's order could be referred, so factual questions on conscious possession were not referable and the issue on the meaning of possession under the Gold (Control) Act did not survive because it had already been settled by binding precedent. The challenge to the Tribunal's reliance on the criminal court's findings required limited reconsideration in light of the applicable guidelines on the effect of criminal proceedings in confiscation matters, so the third question was reframed and referred to the High Court. The reference application was therefore allowed only in part, with the remaining proposed questions rejected or treated as not surviving. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170549