Judgment :- M.S. Sanklecha, J. These 12 appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), challenges the common order dated 13.03.2012 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) disposing of the 12 appeals filed by the appellant before the Tribunal. 2 The following identical questions have been formulated in all the 12 appeals for the consideration of this court: (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remanding the proceedings to the Original Authority for verification of requirement of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and fulfillment of conditions mentioned in the Notification No. 5/2006 dated 14.03.2006 and not deciding the appeals of the Appellants on merits? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellants are entitled to refund of unutilized credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? (c) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the Appellant did not fulfill condition no.4 of the Appendix to Notification No.5/2006 for claiming the refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? 3 The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Menthol liquid BP/USP/ Menthol crystal BP/Us, Rectified Paper Mint Oil. Menthone, Mint, Terpene etc. which are cleared for export under bond as well as for home consumption. The appellant had filed 12 refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (Cenvat Rules) on the ground that they were unable to utilise the cenvat credit taken on inputs used in the manufacture of the final products cleared for exports under bond/letter of undertaking. 4 The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise had the 12 refund claims verified by the Superintendent of Central Excise and on the basis of report dated 20.05.2010 of the Superintendent of Central Excise had sanctioned all the 12 refund claims filed by the appellant. 5 Being aggrieved the Commissioner of Central Excise reviewed all the 12 orders in original resulting in filing of 12 appeals before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) by various orders allowed all 12 appeals filed by the revenue. 5 Being aggrieved the Commissioner of Central Excise reviewed all the 12 orders in original resulting in filing of 12 appeals before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) by various orders allowed all 12 appeals filed by the revenue. These appeals were allowed on the ground that the appellant herein had failed to produce documents/evidence to the effect that credit of duty on which refund was sought pertained to inputs used in the manufacture of goods exported and had remained unutilized and therefore, conditions of Notification no. 5/2006C. E.(N.T.) dated 14.03.2006 issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Rules had not been satisfied. 6 In second appeal, the Tribunal by its common order dated 13.03.2012 allowed the 12 appeals filed by the appellant by way of remand to the adjudicating authority. The basis of the remand was twofold one that the adjudicating authority had not applied his mind independently to the refund applications but merely went by the report of the Superintendent of Central Excise and secondly the batch wise correlation of inputs used in final products i.e. 1:1 correlation could not be carried out as the appellant had failed to produce documents in support of the same. The Tribunal held that the original authority would have to verify whether the requirement of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Rules and the conditions of Notification no. 5/2006 C.E. (N.T.) dated 14.03.2006 have been satisfied by the appellant. The appellant was also given liberty to produce any further evidence which they may require to produce in support of its claim for refund. 7 Mr. Sridharan, Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 13.03.2012 of the Tribunal be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. This was particularly so as in view of the fact that by Notification No.7/2010 C.E.(N.T.) dated 27.02.2010 the Notification No.5/2006 C.E. (N.T.) dated 14.03.2006 has been amended with retrospective effect from 14.03.2006. In view of the above amendment refund of Cenvat credit would be allowed even in respect of inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. Therefore according to him there was no requirement to establish 1:1 co-relation between inputs and final products for the purposes of the refund. In view of the above amendment refund of Cenvat credit would be allowed even in respect of inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. Therefore according to him there was no requirement to establish 1:1 co-relation between inputs and final products for the purposes of the refund. This aspect of the matter though considered by the adjudicating authority has been completely ignored by the Tribunal while disposing of the 12 appeals by order dated 13.03.2012. 8 As against the above, Mr. Jetly, Counsel for the respondent submits that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal as the matter has only been remanded for examining 12 refund claims filed by the appellant. In any event, even the issue whether 1:1 correlation is to be applied or not for the purposes of refund submits that the issue could be decided in remand proceedings. Thus no interference with the order of the Tribunal is called for. Mr. Jetly submits that the remand was justified as the adjudicating authority while granting the refund has not independently applied his mind to Notification No.5/2006 C.E.(N.T.) dated 14.03.2006 and merely relied upon the report submitted by the Range Superintendent. Therefore Mr. Jetly submits that no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication. 9 We have considered the submissions. Normally, we would not interfere with an order of the Tribunal remanding a matter for de-novo adjudication. However, where the Tribunal while setting aside an order and remanding the matter has overlooked a fundamental aspect of the matter going to the root of the matter, then in such a case the matter has to be sent back to the Tribunal to consider that aspect of the matter, as it could possibly lead to end of the dispute between the parties. In this case we find that the Superintendent of Central Excise had in his report pointed out that in terms of Notification No.7/2010-C. E.(N.T) dated 27.02.2010, the appellant had filed its claim for refund in the revised format. The adjudicating authority in his Order dated 04.06.2010 has observed as under: “7. The Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-III/Taloja Division has pointed out that the assessee has not provided the exact 1:1 co-relation between raw material to finished exported goods. The adjudicating authority in his Order dated 04.06.2010 has observed as under: “7. The Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-III/Taloja Division has pointed out that the assessee has not provided the exact 1:1 co-relation between raw material to finished exported goods. In other words the report does not deny the use of Mentha oil as input and also do not mean that raw material were never went in final product. It is the fact that the input material was used in finished product. The input material being in liquid form and the same being stored in a common discharge tank, the intermixing of old and new stock was possible but considering the liquid nature of the input and output product the exact co relation is unwarranted factor because in such cases the production is tested on set up standards of input: output ratio. 8. To this extent it is confirmed that the assessee has single discharge tank for input material. Further, they receive the input material into receiver for batch production either from the discharge tank or from the barrel to fix the quantity of batch input. As such though the stock is intermixed the input quantity could be ascertained. The position of the tank being commonly used for storing the liquid product, where from intake material is streamlined for final product do not disprove that the raw material was not used in the final product exported by the assessee. In such typical and peculiar situation, it has to be understood the issue by applying mind and simple common logic. In that case, the batch intake quantity, the ratio analysis between rat material to finished product, the length of processing period, etc. is very important. The assessee, under self assessment declared that in the particular month they have used the input quantity of raw material in the final product exported by them. This declaration is not mere but supported by batch analysis. They know the input quantity used in final product, which is exported. Therefore unless any contrary position is established by the department the assessee's claim cannot be denied. From the whole scenario, it appears that the point of exact 1:1 co-relation seems to be not sustainable ground in the production of liquid product from liquid input product”. They know the input quantity used in final product, which is exported. Therefore unless any contrary position is established by the department the assessee's claim cannot be denied. From the whole scenario, it appears that the point of exact 1:1 co-relation seems to be not sustainable ground in the production of liquid product from liquid input product”. Therefore the adjudicating authority has independently applied his mind and held that 1:1 correlation is not required for the grant of refund of Cenvat credit. In fact in appeal the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has wile allowing the appeal of the revenue has held that – “14. The respondents have also placed reliance upon the CBEC circular No.20/01/2010-ST dated 19/1/2010. The circular has provided for a procedure to address the problem of proving one to one co relationship and has prescribed a proforma for declaration under paragraph 3:2:2. However, the respondents have not produced the details in the prescribed proforma with the appeal or during the course of personal hearing. As such contention of the respondent is not sustainable”. Thus the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) completely overlooked the Notification No.7/2010-C. E.(N.T.) dated 27.02.2010 and the filing of the refund claim in the revised proforma consequent to Notification No.7/2010-C. E.(N.T.) dated 27.02.2010. The Tribunal also while passing the order dated 13.03.2012 has not considered the effect of amendment to Notification No.5/2006 C.E. (N.T.) dated 14.03.2006 by Notification No. 7/2010C.E.(N.T.) dated 27.03.2010. This retrospective effect is given by Section 74 of the Finance Act, 2010. This amendment appears to have done away with 1:1 correlation between input and final product for refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Rules. 10 In view of the above we set aside the common order dated 13.03.2012 of the Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to decide the appeals after considering the effect of the amended Notification No.5/2006 C.E.(N.T.) dated 14.03.2006 on the refund application filed by the appellants. 11 In the result we are not answering the questions raised in these appeals as the Tribunal would be deciding the matter afresh. All the appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.