ORDER : Ashok Bhan, J. These Appeals are directed against the Final order No. 192- 202/2001-B dated 11.4.2001 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in Appeal Nos. E/3198/93-B, E/944/94-B, E/945/93-B & E/954/94-B whereby the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee has affirmed the order passed by the authorities below. 2. Before the Tribunal, two fold submissions were raised: (1) Whether the appellant was entitled to avail the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 217/86-CE. (2) The other point involved in some of the appeals was regarding the availability of the benefit of Notification No. 281/86 to the goods manufactured in the workshop within a factory. 3. On the first point, the Tribunal on a concession made by the counsel for the parties, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision keeping in view the decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in Commissioner, Central Excise, Indore v. Surya Roshni Ltd. reported in 2001 (42) ELT 817. The finding recorded by the Tribunal on this point is not challenged before us and the same has become final. 4. On the second point, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the benefit of the notification claimed by the assessee was not available to the assessee in view of the decision of the larger Bench in the case of TISCO Ltd. v. CCE, Madras 2000 (118) ELT 104 (T-LB) wherein the Tribunal had held that benefit of the notification is available (i) only for production within the workshop situated within a factory and (ii) used for repairs or maintenance of machinery installed therein. 5. The Tribunal with one line concluded the matter against the appellant- assess by observing "while it is not the case of the assessee that the goods were so used". The Tribunal has not recorded a clear finding that the production was not being carried out by the assessee in the workshop situated within the factory or that the goods were being used for repair or maintenance of the machinery installed therein. The Tribunal has not recorded a clear finding that the production was not being carried out by the assessee in the workshop situated within the factory or that the goods were being used for repair or maintenance of the machinery installed therein. By cryptic and non- speaking order, the Tribunal has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner by applying the ratio of the decision of the larger Bench in TISCO LTD.(supra) without recording a finding of fact that the production carried out by the appellant was not in the workshop situated within the factory or that the goods produced by it were not used for repair or maintenance of the machinery installed therein. It is not sufficient in a judgment to give conclusions alone but it is necessary to give reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at. The finding recorded by the Tribunal, being cryptic and non-speaking, is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision by a speaking order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to both the parties. The Appeals are allowed in the above terms. No costs.