ORDER Akil Kureshi, J. - These appeals arise out of common judgment of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) dated 12-12-2017. Brief facts are as under :- Appellant of Central Excise Appeal No. 93 of 2018 is a Private Limited Company. In connection with its alleged sales to one Panorama Enterprises, the department had issued show cause notice dated 13-1-2004 calling upon the appellant company why central excise duty exemption availed should not be recovered with interest and penalties. In the same show cause notice, Shri. Harish Bulchandani, the director of the company was co-noticee. Against him, there was proposal for imposing personal penalty. 2. The appellant company as well as its director Shri Harish Bulchandani who is the appellant of Central Excise Appeal No. 89 of 2018 opposed the proposal and participated in the show cause notice proceedings. After one round of litigation, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of recovery of duty with interest and penalty and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 4 Lacs on the director of the company. After failing to pursue the appellate authority to set aside these orders, both the noticees approached the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, several contentions were raised. The memo of appeal contains several grounds of facts and law. Principally, the case of both the appellants appeared to be that the sales were made to said Panorama Enterprises when its export licence was valid. Any subsequent cancellation would not invalidate the sales made by the company. 3. The Tribunal by the impugned common judgment dismissed both the appeals. The judgment runs into one and half pages and contains in all six paragraphs. In paragraphs 2 and 3, the Tribunal has recorded facts in brief. Paragraph 4 records that the Tribunal had heard representatives of both sides. Paragraph 5 which is the only portion in which the Tribunal has discussed the controversy and came to his final conclusions, reads as under :- "After hearing both the parties at length and on perusing the record, it appears that the appellant has sold the goods without any consideration, no payment was received and no attempt was made to recover the amount. On enquiry by the department, it was found that M/s. Panorama Enterprises is a fictitious firm not holding a valid ARO. On enquiry by the department, it was found that M/s. Panorama Enterprises is a fictitious firm not holding a valid ARO. When it is so, then we have no other option except to agree with the impugned order. Hence, we uphold the impugned order for the reasons mentioned therein." 4. With great respect and restraint, we find that the Tribunal''s consideration of issues presented before it leaves us dissatisfied. We have perused the appeal memos filed by the appellants which contains several grounds of facts and law. The Tribunal itself records that both sides were heard at length. If, that be so, the Tribunal was required to give proper reasons for its ultimate conclusions. The Tribunal''s order is rather cryptic, does not bring out the full controversy, the arguments raised by both sides and Tribunal''s conclusions on said contentions. 5. We are sure that the Tribunal would be aware of the fact that its judgments are assailable before the High Court or the Supreme Court depending on the subject matter. Unreasoned orders leave the appellate Court the onerous task of finding out the facts and law from the sources outside of the judgment impugned before it. Even otherwise, as a final fact finding authority, the Tribunal is expected to examine all contentions of law as well as of facts. High Court in further appeal would entertain only substantial questions of law. We have made these observations since this is not a one off incident where we have noticed that the judgment of the Tribunal sometimes tends to be rather brief, the devoid of necessary analysis which enabled the Tribunal to arrive at a particular conclusions. 6. Under the circumstances, impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. Appeals of both the appellants before the Tribunal are revived. Such appeals may be heard afresh and disposed of in accordance with law. 7. In view of above, both the appeals are disposed of.