JUDGMENT AND ORDER : AJIT SINGH, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.8.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, Eastern Zonal Bench, (in short “Tribunal”) whereby it has dismissed appellant's Excise Appeal No. 571/2007. 2. The appellant No. 1 is a company owning various Tea Estates in Assam including Appellant No. 2 - Dirial Tea Estate. 3. The Union of India, vide Memorandum dated 24.12.1997, unveiled a New Industrial Policy for the North Eastern Region and in order to give stimulation to the development of Industrial Infrastructure to the North Eastern Region, the said Region was made tax free for a period of 10 years giving incentives to those who wanted to establish Industries in the Region. Pursuant thereto, Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 8.7.1999 was issued granting all exemptions contained therein to New Industrial Units which commenced their commercial production on or after 24.12.1997 and Industrial Units existing before 24.12.1997 but had undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than 25% on or after 24.12.1997 The Notification also stated the manner in which the exemptions contained therein shall be given effect to. 4. Appellant No. 1 after claiming that its Industrial Unit-Appellant No. 2 had undertaken substantial expansion to the extent of more than 25% submitted monthly returns in the form RT-12 evidencing the duty paid. But the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise did not refund the amount of duty paid as per Notification because he was not satisfied that the required expansion under the Notification was undertaken. Later, on the basis of Circular dated 21.1.2004 which was clarificatory in nature and Instruction dated 13.4.2002, Appellant No. 1 again submitted application dated 5.9.2005 for availing exemptions as per Notification for the period from July, 1999 to 28th February, 2003 amounting to Rs. 42,56,107/-. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise vide order dated 5.10.2005 held that appellants were entitled to get the benefit of expansion in terms of the Notification. The Respondent challenged the order dated 5.10.2005 before the Commissioner (Appeals) by filing appeal who vide order dated 30.7.2007 allowed the same on the ground that claim for refund of duty paid was made after six years and hence it was barred by limitation. The Respondent challenged the order dated 5.10.2005 before the Commissioner (Appeals) by filing appeal who vide order dated 30.7.2007 allowed the same on the ground that claim for refund of duty paid was made after six years and hence it was barred by limitation. Thereafter, the appellants challenged the order dated 30.7.2007 before the Tribunal in Excise Appeal No. 571/2007 which has been dismissed by the impugned order in the absence of appellants. 5. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that no proper opportunity of hearing was given by the Tribunal before passing the impugned order. It is true that no one appeared on behalf of the appellants on the date when the case was called for hearing but the fact remains having regard to the nature of legal issues raised and the huge amount involved in the matter the Tribunal ought not to have decided the same on merits and that too by a cryptic order. We accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 24.8.2017 and remand the matter to the Tribunal for its decision afresh on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. We also direct the appellants to ensure that they are represented on the date of hearing fixed by the Tribunal. 6. The appeal is allowed to the above extent but with cost of Rs. 3000/-.