Judgment R. Sudhakar, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Revenue as against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether the Tribunal is correct in its interpretation of Section 129A(b) read with Section 116 and Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 for rejecting the appeals on the ground of lack of jurisdiction? (b) Whether the Tribunal is correct in its reasoning that only Sec.129DD of Customs Act, 1962 is attracted warranting a Revision Application to the Government of India and not an appeal in view of Sec.129A(b) of Customs Act, 1962 before the Tribunal? (c) Whether the finding of the Tribunal on the basis of the Landing Certificate issued by the Superintendent that it is a case of "short landing" and not a case of short receipt after landing is correct in law? (d) Whether the Tribunal is correct in its finding that the earlier rejection of the Review Petitions by the Revisional Authority is a misconceived one?" 2. The first respondent/assessee imported "Propene (Propylene) Polymer grade" through Cuddalore Port during the material period. For the consignment arrived at the Port on 31.12.1993, the importers filed a Bill of Entry on 22.1.1994 seeking clearance of 1408.655 Mts of 'Propene', which was the quantity manifested on the Bill of Lading and the cargo declaration in Form II. They obtained clearance of goods on payment of duty of Rs.17,26,792/- leviable on the said quantity. The landing certificate dated 10.02.1994 issued by the Superintendent, Customs House, Cuddalore, however, indicated 1359.830 Mts of 'Propene' has been despatched through private weighbridge under Customs supervision. Consequently, there is a difference in the quantity of Propene, i.e., 1408.655 -1359.830 = 48.825 Mts. In view of the difference in quantity, the importer filed refund claim on 01.03.1994 seeking refund of duty paid on the short landed goods, which was rejected by the Original Authority along with four other consignments holding that the refund claim was not admissible to the assessee for the reason that the loss of quantity of goods had occurred after its clearance for home consumption and there was no order of remission of duty on the lost quantity. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who allowed the appeal of the importer. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who allowed the appeal of the importer. As against the said order, the Department filed a revision under Section 129DD of the Customs Act and the Revisional Authority rejected the revision holding as follows: "3. Govt. has carefully gone through the written and oral submissions made by both the applicant Commissioner and the respondents. Govt. feels that the Revision Applications pertains to claim for refund of duty u/s 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Revision Application are not maintainable u/s 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 as these are not the case of nature referred to in the proviso to section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. Govt., therefore, is constrained to reject the Revision Applications as beyond jurisdiction and order to return the papers to the applicant Commissioner for filing Appeals to the appropriate Bench of the Appellate Tribunal as deemed fit." 4. Thereafter, the Department filed an appeal before the CESTAT. Before the Tribunal, the importer raised a preliminary objection stating that the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 129A of the Customs Act clearly bars such a filing of appeal. The objection of the importer was accepted by the Tribunal, thereby the Tribunal rejected the appeal holding that appropriate remedy for the appellant was to move the Central Government for revision of the appellate Commissioner's order, under Section 129 DD of the Customs Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is before this Court. 5. For better clarity on this issue, the facts, as extracted by the Tribunal to make out a case on short-landed quantity, are as follows: "In order to get at the exact nature of the event, we shall take as specimen, the case of the goods covered by Bill of Entry dated 22.01.1994. The quantities of 'Propene' noted at various stages of importation and clearance are as under:- I Qty. manifested on Bill = 1408.655 (Duty was paid on of Lading MTs this quantity) II Qty. available in the vessel on its arrival at the Port = 1404.789 (as per Ullage survey report) MTs III Quantity discharged from (Cuddalore being the vessel (diff. The quantities of 'Propene' noted at various stages of importation and clearance are as under:- I Qty. manifested on Bill = 1408.655 (Duty was paid on of Lading MTs this quantity) II Qty. available in the vessel on its arrival at the Port = 1404.789 (as per Ullage survey report) MTs III Quantity discharged from (Cuddalore being the vessel (diff. between = 1391.577 an anchored Port, the quantities shown in MTs the vessel was the initial and final anchored at a point off Ullage survey reports) on shore storage point and the imported liquid was pumped from the vessel into barges, which took the goods ashore) IV Qty. dispatched under =1359.8 (Propene was Customs supervisions (as MTs unloaded from the per landing certificate barges and the dated 10.02.1994 issued quantity discharged by Superintendent of Customs, ashore was Cuddalore weighed on private weighbridge under Customs supervision before it was dispatched to Madras) V Diff. between the quantity =48.825 MTs (Refund was loaded into the vessel at claimed of the duty the port of shipment and paid on this the quantity landed at the differential port of destination. quantity) 4. From the above facts, it is easily discernible that there was short-landing of goods to the extent of 48.825 MTs. This fact appears to have been accepted by the appellant, who averred in the memo of appeal thus:- "... the importer filed a refund claim for Rs.2,06,312/- for the short-landed quantity of 48.825 MTs." 6. In the light of the above, we have to analyse Proviso to sub-section (1) to Section 129A of the Customs Act, which reads as follows: "Section 129A. the importer filed a refund claim for Rs.2,06,312/- for the short-landed quantity of 48.825 MTs." 6. In the light of the above, we have to analyse Proviso to sub-section (1) to Section 129A of the Customs Act, which reads as follows: "Section 129A. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal -(1) Any person aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order - (a) a decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority; (b) an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128A; (c) an order passed by the Board or the Appellate Commissioner of Customs under Section 128, as it stood immediately before the appointed day; (d) an order passed by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs, either before or after the appointed day, under section 130, as it stood immediately before that day: Provided that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order referred to in clause (b) if such order relates to , - (a) any goods imported or exported as baggage; (b) any goods loaded in a conveyance for importation into India, but which are not unloaded at their place of destination in India, or so much of the quantity of such goods as has not been unloaded at any such destination if goods unloaded at such destination are short of the quantity required to be unloaded at that destination; (c) payment of drawback as provided in Chapter X, and the rules made thereunder: ......." (emphasis supplied) 7. A reading of the above provision clearly reveals that the Appellate Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide the appeal in respect of any order referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) to Section 129A of the Customs Act, which is relatable to short-landing. 8. In view of the specific finding of fact by the Tribunal and the provision of law which oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, we find no error in the order of the Tribunal declining to entertain the appeal on an interpretation of proviso to sub-section (1) to Section 129A of the Customs Act. 9. We find that the reasoning of the Tribunal is justified and no appeal can be maintainable before the Tribunal as against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 9. We find that the reasoning of the Tribunal is justified and no appeal can be maintainable before the Tribunal as against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). All the questions of law admitted by this Court are answered accordingly. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered in the above terms. No costs.