ORDER M.S. Sanklecha, J. - This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), challenges the order dated 2nd November, 2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). 2. The Appellant urges the following question of law for our consideration :- 11. "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority?" 3. At the request of the parties, the appeal itself is being disposed of finally at this stage, as the controversy is within a narrow compass. 4. A show cause notice dated 1st April, 2010, was issued to the Appellant by the respondent-Revenue, seeking to recover excess Cenvat credit, aggregating to Rs. 46.15 Crores, for the period November, 2004 to March, 2008. 5. Appellant filed its reply to the Commissioner, contesting the notice both on merits and limitation. By an order dated 7th June, 2013, the Commissioner held that show cause notice-cum-demand, is barred by limitation. Thus, he had no occasion to deal with the submission on merits. 6. Being aggrieved by the above order dated 7th June, 2013, of the Commissioner, the Revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 2nd November, 2017, allowed the Revenue''s appeal, by way of remand to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication. The impugned order dated 2nd November, 2017 holds the order dated 7th June, 2017 of the Commissioner, does not provide any ''head or tail'' and passed without considering the issue at hand. This to conclude that the order of the Commissioner cannot be sustained. Therefore, after setting aside the order restored the proceedings to the Commissioner, for fresh disposal. 7. Mr. Sridharan, Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant points out that neither in the Review Order nor in the Appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 7th June, 2013 of the Commissioner, is any grievance made of it, being incomprehensible. The issues raised in the appeal, challenged the conclusion of the Commissioner that the demand is barred by limitation. It is pointed out that the impugned order does not record the dispute which requires adjudication nor does it record the grievance of the parties. The issues raised in the appeal, challenged the conclusion of the Commissioner that the demand is barred by limitation. It is pointed out that the impugned order does not record the dispute which requires adjudication nor does it record the grievance of the parties. It merely proceeds on its perusal of the order of the Commissioner and comes to the conclusion that the order has been passed without any reasons inasmuch as same does not exhibit the mind of the author. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Jetly, Learned Counsel for the Revenue, submits that no interference is warranted. This on the ground that no prejudice would be caused as the impugned order has merely restored/remanded the show cause notice to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication. 9. We have been taken by the parties through the impugned order of the Tribunal. We do not find any recording of the controversy in dispute and the grievance of the parties to it. The impugned order even does not record whether any of the parties at the hearing urged that the order dated 7th June, 2013 of the Commissioner was impossible to understand, therefore, making it difficult to challenge. It cannot be disputed that in the facts of a particular case, the Tribunal may refer/restore the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. In fact, Section 35C of the Act, while dealing with the orders of the Tribunal does provide that it may if it thinks fit, refer the case back to the authority which passed the order-in-appeal. However, the word "may if it thinks fit", is not an arbitrary or subjective satisfaction of the Tribunal but a satisfaction reached through the filter of reasons in the context of the grievance of the parties before it. In the impugned order, we find that the Tribunal has concluded that the order of the Commissioner in appeal is, incapable of understanding without itself referring to the dispute and any part of the finding of the order which are impossible to understand. Therefore, although the Tribunal is undoubtedly entitled to remand a matter for fresh consideration, the same cannot be at its whim and fancy or mere ispi dixit but a conclusion based on reasons. 10. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. Mr. Jetly''s submission that no prejudice is caused as the issue has only been remanded, is not correct. Therefore, although the Tribunal is undoubtedly entitled to remand a matter for fresh consideration, the same cannot be at its whim and fancy or mere ispi dixit but a conclusion based on reasons. 10. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. Mr. Jetly''s submission that no prejudice is caused as the issue has only been remanded, is not correct. The party in whose favour the order is passed is certainly prejudiced if the order in its favour is being set aside without any reasons. Thus, prejudice is caused. Further, there is a manner of passing orders viz. : supported by reasons. This giving of reasons by authority is now an undisputed part of Rule of law as held by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shukla & Bros. - (2010) 4 SCC 785 : 2011 (22) S.T.R. 105 (S.C.). 11. The substantial question of law is answered in negative i.e. in favour of the appellant and against the respondent-Revenue. In these circumstances, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and restored to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 12. Needless to state the Tribunal would pass an order afresh, in accordance with principle of natural justice. Further, the observations herein shall not be construed as restraining the Tribunal from passing an order of remand, if its conclusion is supported by reasons. 13. Therefore, appeal allowed in the above terms. 14. All contentions left open.