JUDGMENT S.C. Dharmadhikari, J -By this Appeal, the assessee challenges the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (CESTAT) dated 8th March, 2016. This Appeal was partly argued before another Bench and leave was sought to amend the memo to introduce additional grounds. The additional grounds, according to the counsel appearing for the assessee, would raise substantial questions of law. The four questions introduced by amendment read as under: "(a1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, action of seizure of goods i.e. Nylon filament yam contained in 105 cartons vide panchanama dated 9.07.2003 by the Superintendent of Central Excise (Preventive) Officer is bad in law and liable to be quashed, since the Superintendent of Central Excise (Preventive) Officer is not the proper officer for the purpose of the seizure of goods under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962? (a2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, since the Search and Seizure action under section 110 of the Customs Act is bad in law and voidabinito, entire subsequent proceedings such as Show Cause Notice and Adjudication based on illegal seizure are liable to be quashed? (a3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, issuing of the show cause notice by the Deputy Commissioner (Preventive) Central Excise is bad in law and liable to be quashed since Deputy Commissioner (Preventive) Central Excise is not the officer of the custom, had not jurisdiction to issue show cause notice under section 124 of the Customs act, 1962? (a4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, since issuing of the show cause notice under section 124 of the Customs Act is bad in law and voidabinito, entire subsequent proceedings based on the Show Cause Notice are liable to be quashed?" 2. Initially, the assessee proposed a question as substantial question of law but on merits. Now, what is introduced is a question of jurisdiction. 3. Mr. Jain appearing in support of this Appeal would submit that the argument was of jurisdiction. It is clear, according to him, from the annexures to the paper book that show cause notice was not issued by the competent authority/appropriate officer under the Customs Act, 1962. The show cause notice was issued by an officer exercising powers under the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is clear, according to him, from the annexures to the paper book that show cause notice was not issued by the competent authority/appropriate officer under the Customs Act, 1962. The show cause notice was issued by an officer exercising powers under the Central Excise Act, 1944. In that, our attention is invited to page 82 Exh."H" of the paper book which says that though this is a show cause notice referable to Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, it is issued by the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, and to be precise, by the Deputy Commissioner (Preventive), Central Excise, ThaneI. Mr. Jain would concede that the orderinoriginal may be passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) and a reply to the show cause notice was also addressed to him, but once the show cause notice itself is not issued by the competent authority, then, from the above acts of the assessee, his consent cannot be inferred. Even if consent can be inferred, no amount of consent will confer jurisdiction on an officer who is wholly incompetent to initiate or set the law in motion. Hence, according to Mr. Jain, this question of jurisdiction/competence of the authority goes to the root of the case. He relies upon the judgment and order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v/s. Sayed Ali and Another , (2011) 3 SCC 537 , in support of his arguments that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised for the first time, if it is a pure question of law, even at this further appellate stage. To support that proposition, he relies on an order passed in Customs Appeal (L) No.51 of 2017 [The Commissioner of Customs (ImportI) vs S.S. Offshore Pvt. Ltd.] decided on 21st December, 2017 by another Bench of this Court. On merits, Mr. Jain would submit that the orderinoriginal is dated 30th March, 2004. The Appeal to the Tribunal was filed in the year 2004. However, it appeared for hearing and final disposal after a period of 13 years from the date of orderinoriginal. The Tribunal framed for its consideration a question and which is to be found in para 6 of the order under Appeal. According to Mr. Jain, this was never the issue involved and even the show cause notice does not proceed on these lines. The Tribunal framed for its consideration a question and which is to be found in para 6 of the order under Appeal. According to Mr. Jain, this was never the issue involved and even the show cause notice does not proceed on these lines. Thus, there was no question of establishing corelation of the confiscated goods to the duty paying documents. Mr. Jain would submit that even otherwise, all the primary documents had reference to the invoices and those invoices describe the goods. Therefore, nobody had ever disputed such an aspect which is now being raised. By referring only to the vessel, the Tribunal could not have upheld the order in original. In other words, the question or issue framed by the Tribunal took the appellant by surprise and the Tribunal should have, in the larger interest, granted time to the appellant/assessee and his Advocate to prepare thoroughly so as to answer the issue framed by the Tribunal assuming that it arises from the orderinoriginal or the Tribunal has an inherent power to frame it if it is otherwise arising from the adjudication. 4. For all these reasons, he would submit that this Appeal be admitted. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Jetly would submit that all the arguments canvassed before us are purely an after thought. The argument on jurisdiction is of a desperate assessee who has no answer to the show cause notice on merits. He is now raising a hypertechnical plea, particularly after the adjudication is done by the competent official. Secondly, on merits also, if the show cause notice is perused in its totality, there is nothing which would indicate that the issue for consideration of the Tribunal did not arise from the same. The allegations make a specific reference to the vessel and its description as also the documents such as Bill of Entry, invoice, packing list and certificate issued by the manufacturer of the goods. For all these reasons, he would submit that the Appeal should be dismissed as there is no substantial question of law arising in this case for our determination. 6. With the consent of both sides, we have heard this Appeal finally. We have carefully perused the Appeal paper book and the annexures thereto. We have carefully perused the order under Appeal and the decisions brought to our notice. 7. We find some merit in the complaint of Mr. 6. With the consent of both sides, we have heard this Appeal finally. We have carefully perused the Appeal paper book and the annexures thereto. We have carefully perused the order under Appeal and the decisions brought to our notice. 7. We find some merit in the complaint of Mr. Jain that this was a fairly old Appeal and reaching for hearing before the Tribunal after 13 years. If the Tribunal was of the view that there is an issue for consideration with regard to corelation of the confiscated goods to the duty paying document, namely Bill of Entry or otherwise, but that issue was not framed, nor answered by the orderinoriginal, then, fairness requires an opportunity to be granted to the appellant. All the more, when an issue of jurisdiction and competence of the official, who set the law in motion, is also raised. The bonafides of the assessee are clear inasmuch as the order under challenge before the Tribunal has been complied with. All the amounts, including the penalties, have been paid and that is undisputed. 8. We find from the order under Appeal that the appellant''s Advocate argued the Appeal extensively on merits. However, what the Tribunal holds in para 3 is that the issue involved in this case is regarding the redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority and penalties on the assessee. There was a search carried out on the godown of a Roadways and certain goods were seized by the Central Excise Commissionerate under a reasonable belief that these goods are not validly and legally brought in the said godown premises. They were offending goods. Thus, the Tribunal, in its order itself, says that the seizure is by the officer of the Central Excise Commissionerate. Secondly, the authorities, on verification of the documents produced, lifted the seizure on the goods and which were corelatable with the duty paying documents, but issued a show cause notice for confiscation of Nylon Filament Yarn to the quantity 25100.5 kgs. valued at Rs.37, 65, 075/ It is these goods which, after due process of law, were confiscated with an option to redeem them on payment of redemption fine and penalties. 9. valued at Rs.37, 65, 075/ It is these goods which, after due process of law, were confiscated with an option to redeem them on payment of redemption fine and penalties. 9. We do not then understand how the Tribunal, in para 6 of the order under Appeal, holds that the issue involved is whether the assessee is able to corelate the confiscated goods to the duty paying documents that is, Bill of Entry or otherwise. Thus, the observations in paras 3 and 6 of the order under Appeal are difficult to reconcile. We only record a prima facie opinion. Secondly, when the Tribunal was aware of the basic facts that the seizure was effected by the Central Excise Commissionerate, the show cause notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, then, merely marking a copy of that show cause notice to the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) and that authority holding the adjudication and passing the order would mean jurisdictional issue need not be framed or answered, is another aspect of the controversy. Though that issue was not squarely raised, we find that it arises from the order under Appeal. 10. Once these issues and which have been emphasized by us above squarely arise for consideration, then, we admit this Appeal on the following newly added substantial questions of law: "(a1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, action of seizure of goods i.e. Nylon filament yarn contained in 105 cartons vide panchanama dated 9.07.2003 by the Superintendent of Central Excise (Preventive) Officer is bad in law and liable to be quashed, since the Superintendent of Central Excise (Preventive) Officer is not the proper officer for the purpose of the seizure of goods under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962? (a2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, since the Search and Seizure action under section 110 of the Customs Act is bad in law and voidabinito, entire subsequent proceedings such as Show Cause Notice and Adjudication based on illegal seizure are liable to be quashed? (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law by confirming the order in original dated 30th March, 2004 passed by the Respondent merely on the ground that there was the discrepancy in the name of the vessel in the Bill of Entry visavis other import documents? (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law by confirming the order in original dated 30th March, 2004 passed by the Respondent merely on the ground that there was the discrepancy in the name of the vessel in the Bill of Entry visavis other import documents? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant without dealing with the elaborate submissions and without giving the proper hearing? 11. We have found from the rival contentions and the points arising from the order under Appeal which we have noted above, that no useful purpose would be served by keeping this Appeal pending in this Court. After bringing to the notice of the Tribunal the twin aspects of this controversy, namely, on jurisdiction and merits, as also inviting its attention to the apparent inconsistency in its findings and conclusions, we have no alternative but to set aside the order under Appeal. While we proceed to set aside the same at the instance of an assessee, who is equally to blame himself for not being fully ready to argue the case, we think that balance can be struck. We accordingly strike a balance between the rights and equities by directing that, on the appellant/assessee before us paying costs quantified at Rs.50, 000/ to the Revenue within a period of four weeks from today, the Appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal to stand revived for a decision afresh on all the points which we have summarized above. We clarify that beyond inviting the attention of the Tribunal to the issues and controversy, we have not expressed any opinion on either contentions. All that we restate is that old matters have to be disposed of expeditiously. True it is that primacy also has to be given to them. True it is that unnecessary accommodation and adjournments to the appellants like the assessees and their counsel should not be given, still, at the root of this is rendering of complete justice. That cannot be compromised at any cost. It is the duty of the Tribunal as a last fact finding authority, therefore, to be cautious and careful in its approach as haste is waste. The Tribunal could have avoided this remand had it been a little more careful and not proceeded hastily. That cannot be compromised at any cost. It is the duty of the Tribunal as a last fact finding authority, therefore, to be cautious and careful in its approach as haste is waste. The Tribunal could have avoided this remand had it been a little more careful and not proceeded hastily. We hope this much is enough. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. 12. At this stage, Mr. Jetly invites our attention to page 114 of the paper book and says that full compliance with the orderin original has not been made. 13. Mr. Jain says otherwise and contends that after the orderin original was received, the assessee appellant before us has redeemed the goods and the entire amount has been paid. Let the Tribunal also clarify this aspect and in addition to costs, ensure that any outstanding sum is recovered from the assessee, all without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides.