ORDER

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. - Having heard both sides and perusing the orders under Appeal, we are of the opinion that substantial questions of law arise from the impugned orders. The instant appeals are admitted on the following two substantial questions of law :

"(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CESTAT was correct in dismissing the Service Tax Appeal No. ST/86461/14 filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant is not aggrieved party but it is IIMT which is the aggrieved party when the appellant is running the institute (IIMT) as part of its trust activities?

(b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CESTAT was correct in dismissing the Appeal No. ST/86461/14 on the ground that the appellant is not aggrieved party but it is IIMT which is the aggrieved party when the accounts of IIMT are completely merged with the accounts of the appellant - the Appellant being a Trust?

2. With the consent of both the sides we take up the appeals for final disposal forthwith.

The respondents waive service.

3. The only contention raised before us by Mr. Rafiq Dada, Learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of these appeals, is that the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on flimsy and technical grounds. It should have been aware of the definition of the term ''assessee'' which is an inclusive one and that term includes a entity or person who is liable to pay the tax. It is, therefore, not necessary that a particular legal entity alone should maintain an appeal in the event a tax burden is imposed. It is also permissible for a person who actually bears that burden to challenge the imposition, levy assessment and collection of tax. This elementary and basic principle has been completely brushed aside or the Tribunal was not aware of the same.

4. The entity before the Tribunal was a Trust and that is legally known namely a trust which is managing an education institute. It may be that during the course of the management and the affairs administration of the affairs of such institute, the liability to tax arises, but it is admitted that this burden would fall on the Trust and the funds of the Trust would have to be expended to meet this liability. Such being the position and on two occasions the Tribunal has indeed allowed this Trust to prosecute the proceedings, then, in this round of litigation, why the adjudication on merits at the instance of this Trust has not been undertaken, is not clear at all.

5. Our attention has been invited to the impugned order and from which alone these facts can be gathered according to Shri Rafiq Dada. Mr. Kantharia, appearing for the Revenue would submit that it is different entities on different occasions coming before the Tribunal and that is why the Tribunal has decided to pin down the responsibility of prosecution of legal proceedings and there is nothing illegal and erroneous about the impugned order. Secondly, if this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal is indeed hyper technical in its approach, then, this Court should refrain from expressing any opinion on merits and must send the matters back to the Tribunal for adjudication and in accordance with law.

6. With the assistance of both the Counsel we have perused the order under challenge. The entity in Central Excise Appeal No. 222/2017 is MRNM Trust. It has been described as Mathurabai Rambhau Narkhede Memorial Trust, but in Paragraph No. 2 of the memo, it is stated that it is public charitable trust registered under the then Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. In terms of the Trust deed, the income/surplus has to be applied only for the object of the Trust which is imparting education. The Trust/appellant before this Court claims to rely upon the Trust Deed and the fact that at the relevant time, it was imparting education through two institutes, one is Sun Hi-Tech and the other IIMT. The Tribunal was aware of this factual background for if it was not aware it wo