ORDER : H.L. Dattu, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 2974 of 2004 2. The revenue, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2003 passed in Appeal No. E/2478/2002-NB(D) by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('CESTAT' for short), has filed this Appeal under Section 35 L (b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. In this Appeal the issue that falls for our consideration and decision is whether TPT-12 (treated Tamarind Kernal Powder) is classifiable under Heading 11.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as product of milling industry as claimed by the assessee or under Heading 13.01 as a gum as claimed by the revenue. 4. An inspection had been conducted by the Director General of Anti Evasion in the factory premises of the respondent herein. After such inspection, the appellant had issued a show cause notice dated 26th February, 1998, inter alia, charging that the respondent herein had deliberately and intentionally evaded the payment of central excise duty by mis-declaring the product TPT-12 under Sub-Heading 1101.00 chargeable to nil rate of duty instead of declaring the same under Chapter Sub-Heading 1301.10 chargeable to 8% Adv. Central excise duty. 5. After receipt of the show cause notice, the respondent had replied the same and had denied the charges made against it. The Adjudicating Authority, after considering the allegation made in the show cause notice and the reply filed by the respondent, has vacated the show cause notice. 6. The revenue, being aggrieved by the orders of the Adjudicating Authority, had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) who, by order dated 18.06.2002, has allowed the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 7. The assessee, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, had approached the CESTAT in Appeal No. E/2478/2002-NB(D). The CESTAT, by its order dated 30.10.2003, has allowed the assessee's appeal and also set aside the orders passed by the appellate authority. The revenue, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the CESTAT, has filed this Appeal. 8. Since we intend to remand the matter to the CESTAT for a fresh adjudication, we do not intend to notice the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 9. We have perused the orders passed by the CESTAT. The revenue, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the CESTAT, has filed this Appeal. 8. Since we intend to remand the matter to the CESTAT for a fresh adjudication, we do not intend to notice the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 9. We have perused the orders passed by the CESTAT. The CESTAT in its order raised an issue whether TPT-12 is classifiable under Heading 1101.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as product of milling industry or under Heading 13.01 as claimed, as affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 10. While answering the aforesaid issue, the CESTAT has merely relied upon the circulars/instructions issued by the Board in F.No. 10/18/86-CXI dated 14.8.86. In our view, the CESTAT ought to have considered whether by the process of treatment the Tamarind Kernal Powder has undergone a change when TPT-12 is manufactured and sold as a marketable commodity. However, the CESTAT has not answered this issue. In our view, this is a primary issue which should have been considered and answered by the CESTAT. 11. CESTAT is the last finding authority on the question of fact. Therefore, the matter requires to be remanded to the CESTAT for a fresh determination of the issue which it had raised for its consideration. 12. Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of. The order passed by the CESTAT dated 30.10.2003 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the CESTAT for consideration of the issue that was raised by it after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The parties are at liberty to produce such other relevant materials they so choose to produce before the CESTAT. The parties shall appear before the CESTAT on 21st of November, 2011. The CESTAT thereafter will decide the matter as earlier as possible at any rate within four months from today. All the contentions of both the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly. Civil Appeal No. 3420 of 2004 And Civil Appeal No. 800 of 2007 13. In view of the orders passed in Civil Appeal No. 2974 of 2004, these Appeals are also disposed of in the same terms and conditions. Civil Appeal No. 2959 of 2006 14. In view of the orders passed in Civil Appeal No. 2974 of 2004, this Appeal does not survive for consideration by this Court at this stage. In view of the orders passed in Civil Appeal No. 2974 of 2004, these Appeals are also disposed of in the same terms and conditions. Civil Appeal No. 2959 of 2006 14. In view of the orders passed in Civil Appeal No. 2974 of 2004, this Appeal does not survive for consideration by this Court at this stage. This Appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous.