M. S. Sanklecha J. - (1.) This appeal under Section 130-A of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) takes exception to order dated 31st October 2017 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (West Zonal Bench) at Mumbai (Tribunal). The impugned order dated 31st October 2017 of the Tribunal partly allowed the Respondent's appeal from letter dated 25th September 2017 communicating the decision of the Commissioner of Customs (Import-I) allowing provisional release under Section 110- A of the Act of the imported vessel Sagar Fortune(vessel), subject to certain conditions, pending final adjudication. The vessel had been seized on 21 August 2017 under Section 110 of the Act. The Tribunal after setting aside the letter dated 25 September 2017 restored the issue to the adjudicating authority i.e. Commissioner of Customs(I) to pass a fresh order.
(2.) The Revenue urges only the following question of law for our consideration: "Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an Appeal against a letter allowing provisional release of Vessel "Sagar Fortune" under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962"? From the impugned order dated 31st October 2017 of the Tribunal, it appears, that , the Revenue had not urged the issue raised hereinabove before the Tribunal. However, as the question raised is one of jurisdiction on undisputed/admitted facts, going to the root of the dispute, and if the appellant is correct, it would make the impugned order dated 31 October 2017 a nullity (see Kiran Singh & Ors. Vs. Chaman Paswan, 1954 AIR(SC) 340) we are considering the question urged. In support of considering a question of jurisdiction(on admitted facts) in an appeal before this court even when not urged before the Tribunal we place reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Santosh Hazari vs. Purshottam Tiwari, 2001 251 ITR 84. Normally, following the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd., 2002 256 ITR 395 where an issue has not been raised before the Tribunal, we do not entertain the question pertaining to the issue before us for the first time. However when the issue is one of jurisdiction(on admitted facts) of the Tribunal to pass an order is concerned, the question going to the root of the dispute, would require consideration. The Respondent also do not object to the above question of jurisdiction being considered by the Court in this appeal.
(3.) The question as proposed is a substantial question of law and therefore admitted.;