JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The appeal by the revenue arises from an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 7 February 2014. 2. The following questions of law have been pressed at the hearing of the appeal. "1. Whether the Tribunal has committed an error of law in accepting and upholding the prayer of the Respondent for the retest of samples by the Commissioner (Appeal). 2. Whether the tests which were undertaken by Basmati Export Development Foundation, Roorkee Road Modipuram, Meerut duly approved body of DGFT AS PER dgft POLICY Circular No. 28/2009 dated 31.03.2010 for variety identification of Basmati Rice are acceptable/ believable." 3. In the present case, the entire controversy turned on whether the consignment which was sought to be exported by the respondent was of Basmati Rice. The Commissioner (Appeals), by an order dated 25 October 2012, accepted the contention of the assessee that a retest was necessary. Hence, the order of adjudication was set aside with a direction to re-adjudicate after the samples were retested and after following the principles of natural justice. 4. The Tribunal, in our view, has justifiably held that the Commissioner had found fault with the department for not ordering a retest, particularly in a situation where the assessee had furnished reasons for doing so. 5. In our view, since there is no finding as such on the merits and only a retest had been directed after which a proper adjudication would be carried out, the appeal will not give rise to any substantial question of law. The Tribunal has also qualified its order by observing that in the course of the adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority would be within its rights in taking into consideration the parameters laid down by the Board and in law in determining as to whether the rice in question was Basmati Rice or otherwise. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.