ORDER : S.V.Bhatti, J Heard Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant, and Mr Rohan Shah, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the maintainability of the instant appeal before this Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act 1962 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The Commissioner of Customs, challenging the Final Order No.20218-20219/2020 dated 18.02.2020 in Customs Appeal No.27102/2013 of Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has filed the appeal under section 130 of the Act. M/s. Asean Cableship Pvt. Ltd, Singapore, represented by its General Manager, is the respondent. For convenience, parties are referred to as appellant and respondent. 3. The Background Circumstances : On 15.12.2005 the agreement entitled 'The South East Asia and Indian Ocean Cable Maintenance Agreement' was entered between the Telecom Companies (Maintenance Authorities) and Cableship operators. The object of the agreement is to provide submarine cable installation, repairs and maintenance to the Maintenance Authorities. The respondent, in turn, entered into an agreement with Cochin Port Trust for availing berthing facility at Cochin Port. The respondent, as part of its contractual obligation under 'South East Asia and Indian Ocean Cable Maintenance Agreement', shall be based at Port of Cochin, India, and has deployed 'C S Asean Explorer' for carrying out the contractual obligations under the Cable Maintenance Agreement. 'C S Asean Explorer' was berthed at Cochin Port and undertook sorties to places of repair and maintenance work in the Arabian Sea. 3.1 Show-cause notice dated 10.07.2012 along with corrigendum dated 14.08.2012 was issued proposing to initiate action under Sections 111(b) and (f) of the Act read with Section 125 of the Act contemplating to levy duty, impose redemption penalty, etc under Sections 128(8) and (10) of the Act. The respondent resisted these steps initiated for alleged violation of any of the provisions of the Act by the appellant. For our present purpose it is sufficient to notice that the respondent claimed that C S Asean Explorer, which was subjected to a confiscation order, is a foreign-going vessel falling within the definition of Section 2(21), and Section 87 of the Act accords exception from payment of any duty under the Act, C S Asean Explorer since is a foreigngoing vessel. In other words, Section 87 of the Act exempts payment of duty on the stores consumed by C S Asean Explorer during the period 2007-2012. In other words, Section 87 of the Act exempts payment of duty on the stores consumed by C S Asean Explorer during the period 2007-2012. Therefore, the respondent is not answerable to any duty leviable under the Act, no assessment is required for the purpose of determining the amount payable by the respondent, and consequently, levy of penalty, redemption fine, duty etc are not warranted in the peculiar circumstances of the case. 3.2 In the present order, we are, as noted above, considering whether the instant appeal is maintainable against the order dated 18.02.2020 of the CESTAT in this Court under Section 130 of the Act or not? Therefore, by a clear choice and understanding, we are refraining from detailing several niceties or intricacies relied on by both the parties in support of their respective contentions on the real issues arising for a decision of the Court. The Commissioner of Customs, through order dated 04.04.2013, imposed and demanded the following sums from the respondent: “(i) I order confiscation of the vessel C.S.ASEAN Explorer, valued at Rs. 80.60 crores under sections 111 (d) and 111 (f) of the Customs Act 1962. (ii) I allow redemption of the vessel C.S.ASEAN Explorer, valued at Rs. 80.60 crores on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 8,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores only) under Sections125 of the Customs Act 1962. (iii) I hold the stores, spares and bunkers consumed by the vessel during its stay in India during the period 11.07.2007 to 24.04.2012, totally valued of Rs. 45,15,20,479/- liable for confiscation under sections 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 3 of the Foreign Trade [Development and Regulation] Act 1992. (iv) I confirm the demand of duty of Rs.9,98,58,697/- (Rupees nine crores ninety eight lakhs Fifty Eight thousand six hundred and ninety seven only) from M/s. ASEAN Cable Ship Pte Ltd. on the stores valued at Rs. 45,15,20,479/- received by the Cable Ship ASEAN Explorer under Section 28(8) of the Customs Act 1962. (v) ASEAN Cable Ship Pte Ltd. shall also be liable to pay interest as applicable under Section 28 (10) of the Customs Act 1962, on the duty amount of Rs.9,98,58,697/- (Rupees nine crores ninety eight lakhs fifty eight thousand six hundred and ninety seven only) from the date of import till the date of payment of the duty. (v) ASEAN Cable Ship Pte Ltd. shall also be liable to pay interest as applicable under Section 28 (10) of the Customs Act 1962, on the duty amount of Rs.9,98,58,697/- (Rupees nine crores ninety eight lakhs fifty eight thousand six hundred and ninety seven only) from the date of import till the date of payment of the duty. (vi) I impose a penalty equal to the sum of duty of Rs. 9,98,58,697/- and interest payable thereon, on M/s. ASEAN Cable Ship Pte Ltd, under section 114A of the Customs Act 1962. (vii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) on Shri. Too Taik of the vessel CS. ASEAN Explorer under section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962. (viii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) on M/s. Forbes and Company Ltd., under section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962. (ix) I order that the Bank Guarantee of Rs.46.26 crores submitted by M/s ASEAN Cable Ship Pte Ltd. shall be invoked and adjusted against the duty, interest, fine and penalty payable.” 3.3 The respondent aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2013 filed appeal before the CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore in Customs Appeal No.27102 of 2013. The CESTAT through the order impugned in the appeal, allowed and remanded the appeal for determining the extent of applicable duty on the ship’s stores consumed by the appellant during the period the vessel was engaged in operations in Indian territorial waters and for the normal period. The Final Order of CESTAT dated 18.02.2020, in effect, accepted the case of respondent that CS Asean Explorer is a foreign-going vessel and Section 87 is attracted to stores consumption on Board. Hence, the appeal. 4. Mr Rohan Shah, putting forward the preliminary objections on the maintainability of instant appeal in this Court, firstly, contends that the order under appeal of the CESTAT is not an eligible order under Section 130 of the Act, therefore, the appellant has chosen the wrong appellate forum. The Act provides, to an aggrieved party against an order of CESTAT, recourse of further remedy of appeal before different Forums depending upon the issues dealt with and decided by the CESTAT. The remedy of appeal to an aggrieved party is subject to certain specified jurisdictional pre-conditions. The Act provides, to an aggrieved party against an order of CESTAT, recourse of further remedy of appeal before different Forums depending upon the issues dealt with and decided by the CESTAT. The remedy of appeal to an aggrieved party is subject to certain specified jurisdictional pre-conditions. To merit filing an appeal under Section 130 of the Act in this Court, the prescription is that the order eligible for appeal must be one where the order sought to be impugned does not relate to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment. In the case on hand, the order under appeal is a non-eligible order for appeal to this Court inasmuch as the order deals with whether or not the “ship’s stores” are or are not liable to customs duty under Section 87 of the Act. The ship’s stores in question are stores and consumption from stores of a foreign-going vessel, by operation of Section 87 of the Act, is not liable to customs duty. The issue is pertaining to the levy of duty based on which further assessment to duty will or will not occur. Therefore, from a cumulative reading of the definition of Section 2(2), (15), (21) and (38) read with Sections 87 and 130 of the Act, the issue now considered by the appeal is specifically excluded from the ambit of appeal under Section 130 of the Act. He relies on the judgments reported in Navin Chemicals Manufacturing & Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, (1993) 68 ELT 31; Union of India v. Auto Ignition Ltd., 2002 (142) ELT 292 (Bom.); Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Aurangabad, 2007 (213) ELT 658 (Bom.); The Commissioner of Customs v. BMW India Private Limited, Kanchipuram, 2019 (5) TMI 930 Madras HC; CCE., C. & ST., Thiruvananthapuram v. Kerala State Beverages, 2014 (300) ELT 217 (Ker.); CCE Mumbai vs. Reliance Media Works Ltd., 2019 (12) TMI 392 – Bombay HC for the proposition/tests in appreciating what constitutes eligible order etc. 5. Learned Additional Solicitor General, replying to the preliminary objections, contends that the objection on the maintainability of appeal is on an erroneous assumption of circumstances in favour of respondent which is, in fact, an issue between the parties in the subject proceedings. 5. Learned Additional Solicitor General, replying to the preliminary objections, contends that the objection on the maintainability of appeal is on an erroneous assumption of circumstances in favour of respondent which is, in fact, an issue between the parties in the subject proceedings. The subject matter of the appeal does not deal with duty, valuation, classification or exemption given by a notification, but the substance of the issue for decision is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the status claimed by the respondent for C S Asean Explorer as a foreign-going vessel is sustainable or not? Elaborating his argument, he contends that the order under appeal, among other things, has not determined any question having relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment. The respondent could, in the circumstances, establish that C S Asean Explorer is a foreign-going vessel there is no occasion for determination of the rate of duty of customs, the value of goods, for purposes of assessment. It is emphatically argued that the appellant is aggrieved by the acceptance of the status of C S Asean Explorer as a foreigngoing vessel and, consequent thereto, extending statutory exemption under Section 87 of the Act. Therefore, what constitutes subject matter of appeal is the status or standing of C S Asean Explorer. By a combined reading of Section 2(2) read with Sections 130 and 87 of the Act, the core question for determination in this appeal is the standing or status of C S Aesan Explorer vis-a-vis whether it is a foreign-going vessel or not? The appellant could establish that C S Asean Explorer is a foreign-going vessel, then, the remedy is by way of an appeal to this Court. He relied on the reported decision in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Motorola India Ltd., 2019 (9) SCC 563 for the proposition that the order under appeal does not involve whether the respondent violated the conditions of exemption notification etc. According to him, this Court has jurisdiction and the appeal is maintainable. To bring home his argument on the core issue for consideration in the instant lis, he has invited our attention to the conclusions recorded both by the Commissioner of Customs and the CESTAT and at appropriate stage of the order we would excerpt relevant portions from the order under appeal. 6. To bring home his argument on the core issue for consideration in the instant lis, he has invited our attention to the conclusions recorded both by the Commissioner of Customs and the CESTAT and at appropriate stage of the order we would excerpt relevant portions from the order under appeal. 6. We have taken note of the contentions and perused the record. The preliminary issue for decision is: Whether the order under appeal is an eligible order for appeal under Section 130 of the Act or not? 6.1 In paragraph no.3 and of the instant order we have adverted to the agreement entitled as 'South East Asia and Indian Ocean Cable Maintenance Agreement' and the respondent and Cochin Port Trust. In the nature of circumstances noticed by the appellant, the appellant understood that the respondent ought to have disclosed the details of consumables from stores on board of vessel C S Asean Explorer and paid duty etc under the Act. The respondent claimed that considering its status and standing as a foreign-going vessel is not under obligation to pay duty under the Act. To appreciate the above controversy we deem it appropriate to refer to a few findings recorded by the Commissioner in order dated 04.04.2013. Paragraph 154 prefaces that the primary issue for decision in this proceeding, i.e., before him, lies within a small compass and seeks to determine whether the Vessel-C S Asean Explorer qualifies as a foreign-going vessel, as defined under Section 2(21) of the Act. 6.2 In paragraphs 168 and 175 of the order, the Commissioner recorded the following findings : “168. It can thus be seen that the vessel was in fact being paid by the maintenance authority in India for its state of operational preparedness. Operational preparedness when discharged as a function under an agreement and when paid for under the agreement becomes a paid service rendered by the vessel. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the vessel was in fact idling in the Indian waters, I now proceed to examine the provisions of law in this regard. As already discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the definition at section 2 (21) of the Customs Act 1962 does not make provisions for a foreign-going vessel to idle in the Indian waters. This fact finds abundant clarification in the circular No.16/2012 dated 13.06.2012 which was relied upon by ACPL as well. As already discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the definition at section 2 (21) of the Customs Act 1962 does not make provisions for a foreign-going vessel to idle in the Indian waters. This fact finds abundant clarification in the circular No.16/2012 dated 13.06.2012 which was relied upon by ACPL as well. The circular provides that foreign-going vessels "are the vessels that are registered abroad and its entry into the country is for carrying cargo or passengers, as a conveyance. Hence, there is no requirement for filing an I.G.M, Bill of Entry for foreign flag vessel which is being used as conveyance. **** 175. As contented by APCL, the essential points to be noted in the section 87 are that the stores needs to be imported stores; they should be consumed on board the vessel; and such consumption has to be on board a foreign going vessel for availing the benefit of consuming the soda stores without payment of duty. In the present case there is no dispute that what was consumed was imported stores and they were consumed on bard the vessel ASAN Explorer. For reasons stated in the earlier paras the contention of the ACPL that the said vessel is a foreign going one is not sustainable and hence the provisions of Sev 87 permitting duty free import of stores would not be available to ACPL. Hence ACPL is liable to pay duty as applicable on the stores, spares, and bunkers received and consumed on board by mis-declaring the vessel as a foreign going vessel. ACPL is also liable to pay interest as applicable on the duty so payable, under Section 28(10) of the Customs Act”. 7. The CESTAT has taken up for consideration from paragraph 3 under the heading ‘Asean CableShip was a foreign-going Vessel'. In paragraph 28 the CESTAT held as follows: “.... We hold that the impugned vessel is a foreign-going vessel and as such eligible to procure stores in terms of Section 87 of the Customs Act 1962. However, we hold that the appellants are liable to pay duty on stores consumed while performing operations in the Indian territorial waters, for the normal period.” The appellant against the above finding has raised several grounds together with a few substantial questions and for illustration purposes, we excerpt substantial question nos. 1 and 2, which read as follows: “1. However, we hold that the appellants are liable to pay duty on stores consumed while performing operations in the Indian territorial waters, for the normal period.” The appellant against the above finding has raised several grounds together with a few substantial questions and for illustration purposes, we excerpt substantial question nos. 1 and 2, which read as follows: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the scope of Sec. 2 (21) of Customs Act, when it was shown that the ship by name C.S. Asean Explorer stood admittedly berthed at Cochin Port for 1750 days, except 341 days, which was to enable the ship to have repairs, whether the said ship can be qualified as a foreign-going vessel (emphasis supplied) 2. When the ship C.S. Asean Explorer admittedly stood berthed at Cochin Port for the substantial period without taking voyage to ports/destinations abroad, whether the stores in the ship would be entitled for exemption from. payment of Customs duty on the premise of foreign-going vessel. (emphasis supplied) 7.1 Chapter XV of the Act deals with appeals and revision. The scheme of remedy, by way of appeal and revision to aggrieved party/person, is provided for by the Parliament. The case on hand deals with an order made by CESTAT in exercise of its power under Section 129 of the Act. The aggrieved party, depending upon the complexion of consideration of an issue by the Tribunal, has a remedy of further appeal under Section 130 to the High Court and under Section 130E to the Supreme Court. For convenience, Sections 130 and 130E are excerpted hereunder: “130 Appeal to High Court (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment), if the High Court satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) The Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs or the other party aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such appeal under this subsection shall be - (a) filed within one hundred and eighty days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs or the other party; (b) accompanied by a fee of two hundred rupees where such appeal is filed by the other party; (c) in the form of a memorandum of appeal precisely stating therein the substantial question of law involved. (2A) The High Court may admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of one hundred and eighty days referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the same within that period. (3) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (4) The appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated, and the respondents shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question: 130E. Appeal to Supreme Court An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from (a) any judgment of the High Court delivered (i) in an appeal made under section 130; or (ii) on a reference made under section 130 by the Appellate Tribunal before the 1st day of July, 2003; (iii) on a reference made under section 130A, in any case which, on its own motion or on an oral application made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately after passing of the judgment, the High Court certifies to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court; or (b) any order passed before the establishment of the National Tax Tribunal by the Appellate Tribunal relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment.” 7.2 It is axiomatic that appeal is a statutory right conferred by Legislature on an aggrieved party. There is no inherent right of appeal to an aggrieved party and, in the case on hand, the right of appeal, as noted above, is covered by Sections 130 and 130E of the Act. The scheme of Customs Act envisages redressal mechanism by way of appeal under Section 128 from primary authority to Commissioner; further from the order of Commissioner to the CESTAT constituted under Section 129; from the order of CESTAT to the High Court under Section 130; or to the Supreme Court under Section 130E. The order of the High Court is again appealable under Section 130E to Supreme Court. An appeal is nothing but a proceeding where a higher Forum reconsiders the decision of the lower Forum on questions of fact and questions of law with jurisdiction authority to confirm, reverse, modify the decision or remand the matter to the lower Forum for fresh decision in terms of its directions. An appeal is a creature of Statute and there is no inherent right of appeal. The argument now advanced by Mr Rohan Shah is that the cognizance of the issue now canvased by the appellant is vested in the Supreme Court, but not this Court. 7.3 The jurisdictional facts are appreciated and determined by keeping in perspective the meaning assigned to the words ‘assessment’ by Section 2(2); ‘duty’ by Section 2(15); ‘foreign-going vessel’ by Section 2(21); and ‘stores’ by Section 2(38) of the Act read with eligible and ineligible orders appealed under Section 130 of the Act. And also, in other words, the preliminary objection on the maintainability of the appeal against the order impugned before this Court invites us to decide the jurisdictional facts of the case and whether these jurisdictional facts fall under the category of eligible order for an appeal to this Court or the appeal is maintainable before Supreme Court under Section 130E. Appreciation of defined words “assessment”, “duty”, “foreign-going vessel or aircraft”, and “stores” covered by Section 2 sub-sections (2), (15), (21) and (38) together with Section 130 of the Act is kept in mind, inasmuch as the defined words are given defined meaning while deciding eligible or ineligible order for the purpose of Section 130 of the Act. Appreciation of defined words “assessment”, “duty”, “foreign-going vessel or aircraft”, and “stores” covered by Section 2 sub-sections (2), (15), (21) and (38) together with Section 130 of the Act is kept in mind, inasmuch as the defined words are given defined meaning while deciding eligible or ineligible order for the purpose of Section 130 of the Act. 7.4 In legal parlance “jurisdiction” means the legal authority to administer justice according to the means which the law has provided and subject to the limitations imposed by that law upon the judicial authority. Appreciated in the context of right of appeal, the term “jurisdiction” means the power, right, or authority to take cognizance and decide any matter according to law. The cognizance or conferment of jurisdiction is a prerequisite for the exercise of power. Moving a step ahead, a jurisdictional fact is one, on the existence of which depends on the jurisdiction of a Court, Tribunal, or an authority. The jurisdictional fact if does not exist, the Court or Tribunal cannot act. So we must from the record, discern the circumstances examined both by CESTAT and Commissioner as jurisdictional facts for exercising the functions respectively conferred on them by the Act. For the purpose of appreciating what is the jurisdictional fact considered by the Commissioner of Customs and the CESTAT, we have already either narrated or excerpted a few of the narrative undertaken by them in their orders. We do not, therefore, propose to burden once again in our order by stating them in great length. It would suffice to conclude that on the commission or omission pointed out by the appellant against the respondent, during and in the course of proceedings initiated in Annexure-A order, the first and foremost plea set up by the respondent is that C S Asean Explorer is a foreign-going vessel. Noted that, the Commissioner has taken one view on the circumstances of the case and the CESTAT has taken a different view on the very same set of circumstances to hold that C S Asean Explorer is a foreign-going vessel. Pausing here for a while, the jurisdictional fact for consideration in the instant appeal could be the circumstances set out by the respondent whether would fall within the definition of ‘foreign-going vessel’. Pausing here for a while, the jurisdictional fact for consideration in the instant appeal could be the circumstances set out by the respondent whether would fall within the definition of ‘foreign-going vessel’. Therefore, we hold and record that the jurisdictional fact for consideration in the appeal is whether C S Asean Explorer is a foreign-going vessel or not? The respondent laid much emphasis on the definitions of “assessment”, “duty”, “foreign-going vessel or aircraft”, and “stores'' for deciding eligible and ineligible order under Section 130 of the Act. It is commended to this Court, with persuasion, to determine the controversy of jurisdiction vis-a-vis Section130 of the Act, by specifically employing the meaning assigned to applicable words in respective definitions. 8. A legal definition is for the most part inductive generalization derived from judicial experience and in order to be complete and adequate, they must sum up the results of all that experience as they are to be found in the special cases that belong to the class to be defined. A definition may be both inclusive and exclusive, i.e., it may include certain things and exclude others. The Legislature uses the word “means” or/and the word “includes” in the Statute particularly while defining words. The use of the word “means” indicates that the definition is a hard and fast definition and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression than that it puts down in the definition. When a definition contains the word “includes” it is an extensive definition. The use of the word “means” indicates that the definition is a hard and fast definition and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression than that it puts down in the definition. When a definition contains the word “includes” it is an extensive definition. The applicable definitions Section 2(2), (15), (21) and (38) are excerpted: “Section 2(2) "assessment" means determination of the dutiability of any goods and the amount of duty, tax, cess or any other sum so payable, if any, under this Act or under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the Customs Tariff Act) or under any other law for the time being in force, with reference to (a) the tariff classification of such goods as determined in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act; (b) the value of such goods as determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Customs Tariff Act; (c) exemption or concession of duty, tax, cess or any other sum, consequent upon any notification issued therefor under this Act or under the Customs Tariff Act or under any other law for the time being in force; (d) the quantity, weight, volume, measurement or other specifics where such duty, tax, cess or any other sum is leviable on the basis of the quantity, weight, volume, measurement or other specifics of such goods; (e) the origin of such goods determined in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act or the rules made thereunder, if the amount of duty, tax, cess or any other sum is affected by the origin of such goods; (f) any other specific factor which affects the duty, tax, cess or any other sum payable on such goods, (emphasis supplied) and includes provisional assessment, self-assessment, reassessment and any assessment in which the duty assessed is nil; **** Section 2(15) “duty” means a duty of customs leviable under this Act; **** Section 2(21) "foreign-going vessel or aircraft" means any vessel or aircraft for the time being engaged in the carriage of goods or passengers between any port or airport in India and any port or airport outside India, whether touching any intermediate port or airport in India or not, and includes- (i) any naval vessel of a foreign government taking part in any naval exercises; (ii) any vessel engaged in fishing or any other operations outside the territorial waters of India; (iii) any vessel or aircraft proceeding to a place outside India for any purpose whatsoever; **** Section 2(38) "stores" means goods for use in a vessel or aircraft and includes fuel and spare parts and other articles of equipment, whether or not for immediate fitting:” 8.1 The four definitions now referred to or relied on by both the Counsel are with the words both “means” and “includes” as excerpted above. The objection is that Section 130 of the Act has employed the defined words such as “duty”, “goods”, “value”, and “assessment”. Therefore, while interpreting Section 130 of the Act, the defined meaning of the Act is kept in mind inasmuch as the issue in question for decision in the appeal is an issue pertaining to levy of duty. The said argument, for consideration of applicable definition while applying Section 130, begs the question. We notice that the order of the CESTAT deals with the issue by prefacing its discussion with the question viz Whether or not the ship’s stores, in the present case, are or are not liable to customs duty under Section 87 of the Customs Act? (emphasis supplied) 8.2 Section 87 is part of Chapter XI. Chapter XI deals with special provisions regarding baggage, goods, imported or exported by post and stores. Section 87 reads thus: “87. Imported stores may be consumed on board a foreign-going vessel or aircraft Any imported stores on board a vessel or aircraft (other than stores to which section 90 applies) may, without payment of duty be consumed thereon as stores during the period such vessel or aircraft is a foreign-going vessel or aircraft.” 8.3 The statutory scheme, in Chapter XI deals with special provisions as stated above and Section 87 grants statutory exemption from the payment of duty on consumption of stores to a class of vessels/aircraft. Any imported stores on board a foreign-going vessel may without payment of duty be consumed during the period such a vessel is a foreign-going vessel. The jurisdictional fact is established, then, what follows as a natural corollary is giving effect to Section 87. No other issue such as value, rate etc of the stores consumed by the ship C S Asean Explorer would arise. 9. At this juncture we find it useful to excerpt Section 130 of the Act hereunder: “130 Appeal to High Court (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment), if the High Court satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) The Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs or the other party aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such appeal under this subsection shall be - (a) filed within one hundred and eighty days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs or the other party; (b) accompanied by a fee of two hundred rupees where such appeal is filed by the other party; (c) in the form of a memorandum of appeal precisely stating therein the substantial question of law involved. (2A) The High Court may admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of one hundred and eighty days referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the same within that period. (3) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (4) The appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated, and the respondents shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question : 9.1 The Parliament in its wisdom has provided for a further remedy by way of appeal in respect of a few sets of orders of the Tribunal to the High Court. And another set of national importance to the remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Act. Whether the order under appeal is an eligible order or not can be decided by the Golden Rule of interpretation of Section 130 of the Act. So interpreted, Section 130 reads : An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the appellate Tribunal if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The converse of it is: An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the appellate Tribunal not being an order relating to, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to (i) the rate of duty of customs, (ii) the value of goods for the purposes of assessment. The converse of it is: An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the appellate Tribunal not being an order relating to, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to (i) the rate of duty of customs, (ii) the value of goods for the purposes of assessment. Therefore, what is excepted from being an eligible order of appeal to the High Court is the appeal dealing with the rate of duty of customs and the value of goods for purposes of assessment. To wit, the meaning as assigned by respective definitions is certainly applied, if we are deciding duty of customs payable on the stores consumption or the value of goods consumed for purposes of assessment. It is straightforward and simple to appreciate that the Parliament has provided for the first right of appeal before CESTAT, a Tribunal which adjudicates the disputes arising from the orders of the Commissioner etc, and then directly to the Supreme Court. Therefore, consistency and uniformity in adjudication in matters of rate of duty of customs, the value of goods are ensured. The jurisdictional fact, in our view, is whether C S Asean Explorer is a foreign-going vessel as defined by Section 2(21) of the Act and, if so, the consumption of stores on board the vessel C S Asean Explorer is exempted by the Act. The emphasis is on the Statue or standing of C S Asean Explorer but not on the rate of duty of customs or the value of goods consumed from the stores. Therefore, the application of defined meaning under the Act has application for deciding whether the order of CESTAT is an eligible or ineligible order. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v Motorola India Ltd has carved out a few categories of cases where Appeal is maintainable only before the apex court. They are: (i) determination of a question relating to a rate of duty. (ii) Determination of a question relating to the valuation of goods for the purpose of assessment (iii) Determination of a question relating to the classification of goods under the Tariff and whether or not they are covered by an exemption notification. (iv) Whether the value of goods for the purpose of assessment should be enhanced or reduced having regard to certain matters that the said Act provides for. (iv) Whether the value of goods for the purpose of assessment should be enhanced or reduced having regard to certain matters that the said Act provides for. The converse of what is stated above comes within the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 130 of the Act. Now coming to the present case none of the above mentioned questions come up for consideration at the first instance before this court. The final question to be decided is whether the imported stores consumed on board without payment of duty. To qualify this the primary question is whether ASEAN Explorer is a foreign going vessel or not. The question of payment of duty, or rate of duty will depend only on the question first posed. Hence the appeal is maintainable only before this court as it squarely fit in under Section 130 of the Customs Act. 9.2 Firstly, as noted above, the jurisdictional fact for consideration by the High Court, in the case on hand, is whether C S Asean Explorer is a foreign-going vessel or not, and secondly, what is accepted from the scope of eligible order namely the duty of customs, the value of goods cannot and could not be the scope of subject appeal. In other words, in final analysis and consideration, the consumption of stores could become dutiable if it is held that C S Asean Explorer is not a foreign-going vessel. The other side of the above consideration is that the consumption of stores on C S Asean Explorer is not dutiable if it is held that C S Asean Explorer is a foreign-going vessel. Therefore, the foremost and only aspect for decision is not on dutiable or non-dutiable or what is the value of consumables etc, but whether the vessel is a foreign-going vessel or not? In the manner now suggested by the respondent, the provision conferring jurisdiction on this Court is interpreted, then, this Court would be adding words to the excepted categories for maintaining appeal; the excepted portion would appear thus: Not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs of stores in a foreign-going vessel or the value of goods for the purposes of assessment of stores in a foreign-going vessel. 9.3 The cognizance of appeal by this Court from the decision of the CESTAT is the jurisdictional fact noted above and that the jurisdictional fact does not come within the exception provided in Section 130 of the Act. Therefore, the Final Order dated 18.02.2020 is an eligible order for maintaining appeal in this Court. We hasten to add that whether an order is appealable to this Court or the Supreme Court is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each one of the cases. The High Court while taking up an issue on the objection raised on the jurisdiction to maintain the appeal, as contended by respondent, cannot proceed that jurisdiction is conferred by the appellant or that the jurisdiction could be inferred in the circumstances of the matter. But, the principle is jurisdiction should be available. The decisions relied on by the appellant in support of its case that the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invited to challenge the order under appeal are distinguishable. No decision on the point of foreign-going vessels having precedential value has been brought to our notice. We take note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Motorola India Ltd. judgment on which emphasis is laid by both the Counsel and we record our finding that jurisdictional fact for consideration is: Whether C S Asean Explorer is a foreigngoing vessel or not? And the consideration of that circumstance does not come within the exception to eligible orders provided in Section 130 of the Act. The questions formulated by the appellant or such other questions that may be formulated by this Court under Section 130(3) of the Act, hear the parties and dispose of the appeal. We have taken sufficient care to hear and not advert to any of the circumstances in issue on the main question between the parties, and even reference is made in this order, the same is for the limited purpose of finding out whether this Court ought to proceed with hearing the appeal on merits or not. The question of limitation may also be one of the questions the Court may consider while disposing of the appeal. In view of the above consideration and for the reasons recorded, the objection on the maintainability of Customs Appeal against the order dated 18.02.2020, at the instance of the appellant herein is overruled. The question of limitation may also be one of the questions the Court may consider while disposing of the appeal. In view of the above consideration and for the reasons recorded, the objection on the maintainability of Customs Appeal against the order dated 18.02.2020, at the instance of the appellant herein is overruled. After the order is pronounced, Mr Rohan Shah requests to post the appeal for hearing after three months. Hence post after three months for hearing.