ORDER S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. - This appeal by the assessee challenges the order passed by the [Customs,] Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), dated 20th April, 2015 in Appeal No. E/1499/07-MUM. 2. That appeal was directed against the order passed by the adjudicating authority, styled as order-in-original dated 27th August, 2007. There was another appeal, which was also heard along with this appeal, namely, E/243/09-MUM, which was directed against the order of the adjudicating authority dated 26th November, 2008. 3. The orders of the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai-V adjudged the duty liability and penalty, whereby, the show cause notices and the demand raised were confirmed. 4. We have, with the assistance of Mr. Sridharan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Bangur appearing for the Revenue, perused the appeal paperbook. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be admitted. It is admitted on the following two substantial questions of law :- "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the CESTAT is correct in upholding the orders-in-original dated 30th April, 2007 and 31st August, 2007 passed by the Commissioner? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the CESTAT is correct in holding that the appellants failed to produce any document ignoring the relevant evidence which were already on record such as trial balance, certificate of cost accountant etc.?" 5. Mr. Sridharan would submit that the appellant-assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of parts and components of lifts/elevators, erection/installation of lifts and maintenance and servicing of already erected and installed elevators. Prior to December, 2003, the assessee had two factories, one at Kandivali, Mumbai and the other at Bangalore. The manufacturing operations at Kandivali were discontinued in December, 2003. The manufacturing activities are now undertaken at Bangalore. The dispute relates to the parts manufactured and cleared from Kandivali prior to December, 2003. After setting out as to how the parts and components are manufactured, it is contended that since separate value of parts of lift is not available, the assessee cleared the parts and components by determining the assessable value under Section 4(1)(b) read with Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. After setting out as to how the parts and components are manufactured, it is contended that since separate value of parts of lift is not available, the assessee cleared the parts and components by determining the assessable value under Section 4(1)(b) read with Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. The excise duty was paid with effect from 1st July, 2000 on the value of parts determined under Section 4(1)(b) read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The price declarations were filed declaring the assessable value. These were accompanied by Chartered Accountant''s certificates certifying the correctness of the cost of production, based on which, the assessable value has been determined. The specific contention is, no objection is raised by the Revenue to these declarations nor the contents of the certificates of the Chartered Accountant questioned. The department conducted an internal audit in July/August, 2000 and after detailed verification, was of the prima facie opinion that the research and development expenses incurred by the assessee are includible in the cost of production of the parts and components while calculating the assessable value. This was not calculated, according to the audit team. Then, the statement, during the course of investigation, was recorded and based on all this, a show cause notice dated 4th May, 2001 was issued on the subject of research and development expenses. The demand was for differential duty for the period from April, 1996 to June, 2000. A reply was filed to this show cause notice on 4th July, 2001. A second show cause notice was issued on 3rd August, 2001 proposing to demand the sum mentioned therein for the period from July, 2000 to June, 2001. A reply was filed to the same on 7th September, 2001. An order-in-original was passed on 29th November, 2001 confirming these demands. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred before the CESTAT. Then, it is stated that there was re-investigation initiated by the Revenue officials and the audit team, during the course of audit, suggested that 20% of the head office administrative expenses are also to be included in the cost of production of the parts and components manufactured and cleared by the assessee. It is in these circumstances that the show cause notice dated 4th May, 2002 was issued for the period from April, 1997 to June, 2001. A reply was filed to this show cause notice. It is in these circumstances that the show cause notice dated 4th May, 2002 was issued for the period from April, 1997 to June, 2001. A reply was filed to this show cause notice. Once again, on this very subject of head office expenses, another show cause notice dated 9th August, 2002 was issued, to which as well, a detailed reply was filed. The details of these show cause notices of 2002 are mentioned and it is alleged that the Commissioner confirmed the demand by invoking extended period of limitation. An appeal was filed against this order-in-original passed by the Commissioner on 21st February, 2003. 6. Then, there were four more periodical show cause notices issued on research and development expenses. From the record, it is apparent that in the two show cause notices, on which the order was passed by the adjudicating authority the appeals were filed, the Tribunal extensively heard them on 7th October, 2004. The orders-in-original were quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority. 7. Then, we have the details of the proceedings post-remand. After remand, the order-inoriginal dated 14th December, 2006 came to be passed in respect of all the show cause notices. One of the show cause notices was dropped, but others were upheld, resulting in demand of duty on the point of head office expenses. 8. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders-in-original on both counts, namely, research and development expenses and head office expenses, the appeals were brought before the Tribunal and the Tribunal once again remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority. After the remand, it appears that readjudication was done by the Commissioner. He passed an order on 31st August, 2007. Thus, the order-in-original dated 10th August, 2007 was challenged in this appeal and a stay application was also moved. After these appeals were placed before the CESTAT, the impugned order has been passed dismissing these appeals. 9. Mr. Sridharan would argue that despite two remands, if the orders-in-original are not delivered and passed pursuant to the directions in the CESTAT''s order, then, it is not the fault of the appellant-assessee. All the materials have been produced, else, the Commissioner could not have dropped one of the show cause notices dated 25th May, 2002. In the impugned order, the Tribunal observes and holds that the assessee has not produced any evidence. All the materials have been produced, else, the Commissioner could not have dropped one of the show cause notices dated 25th May, 2002. In the impugned order, the Tribunal observes and holds that the assessee has not produced any evidence. That is a patently erroneous finding and if the record is perused, it would be apparent that the appellant-assessee relied upon several documents, including those materials, which have been collected during the course of investigation and prior thereto, an audit. Thus, there was overwhelming evidence tendered to counter the demand. For all these reasons, he would submit that the Tribunal has not performed its duty as a last fact finding authority. This is a fit case, therefore, to direct a remand of the matter back to the Tribunal for de novo hearing of the assessee''s appeal. 10. Mr. Bangur, Learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue, however, would support the Tribunal''s order and contend that there are now concurrent findings of fact. Unless and until such findings are demonstrated to be perverse or vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record, we should not entertain the further appeal. No substantial question of law arises from the order under appeal. Hence, the appeal be dismissed. 11. As indicated above, we have perused the paperbook, including the order under appeal. The Tribunal, firstly in Para 1 gives the details of the orders-in-original and Appeal No. E/1499/2007 pertains to the order-in-original dated 27th August, 2007 passed on show cause notices dated 4th May, 2001, 3rd August, 2001, 1st August, 2002, 1st January, 2004, 5th July, 2004, 22nd January, 2003, 8th July, 2003, 30th January, 2004 and 25th August, 2004. As far as Appeal No. E/3/2009 is concerned, that impugns the order-in-original dated 26th November, 2008 concerning the two show cause notices dated 4th May, 2002 and 9th August, 2002. 12. The Tribunal has summarised the facts and arguments, including the plea that four regional offices and two factories are the units where the expenses have been incurred besides the head office. The argument was that the expenses incurred at the head office and out of which part of the expenses are not related to manufacturing activity, cannot be included in the assessable value. The detailed submissions are that in the Kandivali factory also, there are separate departments, namely, accounts, administration, production, quality control, human resources, purchase, etc. The argument was that the expenses incurred at the head office and out of which part of the expenses are not related to manufacturing activity, cannot be included in the assessable value. The detailed submissions are that in the Kandivali factory also, there are separate departments, namely, accounts, administration, production, quality control, human resources, purchase, etc. These are all inside the factory and all the costs associated with this have already been included by the department in calculation of cost of production. Hence, the head office expenses could not have been included. Such an extensive argument in Para 3, supported by case law is based essentially on the record. Then, on the research and development expenses as well, the assessee canvassed detailed submissions, as noted in Para 3.1 and on the point of limitation in Para 3.2. 13. Then, the department''s/Revenue''s representative argued to the contrary. He argued that there is no dispute that all the expenses, which are relatable to the manufacture of goods are included in the assessable value of captively consumed goods. He argued that the assessee, neither before the Commissioner nor before the Tribunal, could produce documents such as books of account, balance sheet, etc. No bifurcation was produced to ascertain whether the claim of the appellant is correct that the entire expenses of administration and research and development are not related to the manufacturing of goods. Thus, despite particulars being given, the calculations could not be submitted nor the evidence produced. Hence, the orders-in-original be confirmed. 14. In a short and cryptic order, which is bereft of complete reasoning, the Tribunal proceeds to note these submissions and faults the assessee for not producing documents and working of the head office expenses and the research and development expenses to support the claim. In the same breath, the Tribunal says that the adjudicating authority has dealt with all the materials, including the Chartered Accountant''s certificates, price list, etc. If no evidences were produced, such a finding was impossible. In our view, it is in reference to evidences, namely, the statements recorded during the investigation, the finding of the audit team set up by the department and the balance sheet and other materials that the Tribunal could have concluded as above. The Tribunal finds fault for not having established the co-relation. In our view, it is in reference to evidences, namely, the statements recorded during the investigation, the finding of the audit team set up by the department and the balance sheet and other materials that the Tribunal could have concluded as above. The Tribunal finds fault for not having established the co-relation. If the assessee had relied upon the documents and shown as to how the factory at Kandivali had several departments undertaking distinct functions not all of which are related to manufacturing of goods, then, surely, the tribunal could have called upon the assessee to produce the records or could have summoned the record from the excise authorities and peruse it. However, the Tribunal proceeds to hold that there is no dispute that the head office expenses and research and development expenses relatable to manufacturing are included in the assessable value of captively consumed goods. However, the assessee was given an opportunity to submit necessary documents, namely, books of account, balance sheet, ledger, etc., and extract of the same to show whether the entire overheads related to head office and research and development expenses are attributable to manufacture or otherwise. The Tribunal then records the concession of the assessee''s advocate that the assessee could not trace out any further records. 15. We do not think that these findings in Para 6 of the order under appeal would suffice. Before us as well, the assessee has brought to our notice that the cost of production of goods is based on the certificate of independent Cost Accountant. Then, while perusing the balance sheet, the department'' Cost Accountant was of the view that the head office expenses mentioned in the balance-sheet have also to be included in the cost of production. Therefore, the demand on head office expenses is arising only because the departmental Cost Accountant has taken a contrary view than the independent Cost Accountant. The assessee argued that there is no suppression and therefore, the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked. Even on merits, it has been stated by the assessee that the department has allocated total expenses of the company to the respective factories. Therefore, the demand of duty on entire research and development expenses is only an alibi having no validity in law. Even on merits, it has been stated by the assessee that the department has allocated total expenses of the company to the respective factories. Therefore, the demand of duty on entire research and development expenses is only an alibi having no validity in law. It was also pointed out in relation to the head office expenses that on that count also there is no suppression of any materials. It is only a change of opinion. In the initial round, the department did not question this allocation. In these circumstances, we think that there were enough materials before the Tribunal, on the basis of which, it could have dealt with all the three issues, namely, the point of limitation, the research and development expenses in the total cost of production and finally the head office expenses as well. We do not see any justification for the Tribunal to fault the assessee. On two prior occasions, the tribunal did not agree with the findings in the order-in-original and set aside these orders and remanded the case. If the Tribunal says and based on what the Revenue argued that there are research and development expenses and head office expenses and issue with regard to the same is involved, then, prima facie, by its very nature, there is a distinction brought about in the Tribunal''s conclusion itself on the cost incurred at the factory and at the head office. When in the factory, all the manufacturing activities are carried out and the administration work is handled by the head office through its staff, then, all the more we cannot sustain the order under challenge. We have emphasised the arguments of the assessee only to indicate that the Tribunal should have passed a more elaborated and detailed order. Its reasoning is cryptic and falls short of the expected legal standards. The final fact finding authority was expected to apply its mind independently to the materials before the adjudicating authority. That is but a final opportunity to a litigant like the assessee before us. This Court can deal with only substantial questions of law. Once the last or final appellate authority or fact finding authority fails in its duty in law, then, we have no alternative but to quash and set aside its order and remand the case back to it. 16. Precisely, for the above reasons, we quash and set aside the order under appeal. Once the last or final appellate authority or fact finding authority fails in its duty in law, then, we have no alternative but to quash and set aside its order and remand the case back to it. 16. Precisely, for the above reasons, we quash and set aside the order under appeal. We allow the appeal, but without any order as to costs. We remand the two appeals back to the Tribunal for a decision afresh on merits in accordance with law, but while passing a fresh order, the Tribunal shall not be influenced in any manner by its earlier conclusions. All contentions of both sides are kept open.