JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. - By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has disposed of the appeal of the appellant on the ground of limitation. 2. The appeal was admitted on 27-9-2016 on the following substantial question of law : - "Whether dismissal of appeal by rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law could not be countenanced and appeal needs to be restored to the file of the CESTAT for decision afresh affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant to secure the ends of justice?" 3. He invited our attention to the observation made by the Commissioner vide order dated 30-11-2007 towards the fact that ample opportunities were granted to the appellant which reads as under : - "The Commissioner (Revenue), JNN vide his letter No. F-6/07/319, dated 21-7-2007 submitted reply to the show cause notice stating that they were taking action for recovery of Service Tax Against those firms who had been given Revenue [Hoarding] Licence by JNN. The JNN had issued notices for recovery of Service Tax. He further added that they were in process of taking action for opening Service Tax Account and soon the Service Tax Registration shall be taken. He also submitted list of outstanding Service Tax on their licence holders along with photostat copies of Notices issued. He also submitted that they after taking urgent action, they will inform the Department. Thereafter, a personal hearing was given on 25-7-2007. Sh. Babu Lal Bohra, Revenue Officer, JNN appeared for Personal Hearing and stated that they were in the process of obtaining Registration for Service Tax and as soon as the service Registration is taken, the Service Tax shall be deposited. He requested to grant one month''s for depositing the Service Tax. Further dates were fixed for 27-8-2007 and 27-9-2007 and nor any one appeared on the dates so fixed. Three opportunities have already been provided to the Noticee. The case is taken up for decision on the basis of facts available on record. Discussion and Findings :- I have carefully gone through the facts of case show cause notice, written reply and submissions given during Personal Hearing. Three opportunities have already been provided to the Noticee. The case is taken up for decision on the basis of facts available on record. Discussion and Findings :- I have carefully gone through the facts of case show cause notice, written reply and submissions given during Personal Hearing. It is an admitted position that the JNN, provided taxable service under the category of sale of space or time "for advertisement services" as defined in sub-clause (zzzm) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 and charged and received, amount of Rs. 2,82,81,500/- on this account of providing the record which attracted Service Tax @ 12% on amount so received, and Education Cess @ 2% on Service Tax @ 12% on amount so received, and Education Cess @ 2% on Service Tax. M/s. JNN at no point of time, whether through written reply or during personal Hearing have contested the applicability of Service Tax. M/s. JNN during their Personal Hearing on 25-7-2007 and through written submissions dated 21-7-2007 had agreed to deposit due Service Tax after recovering from their license holders. It is clear from the facts of the Case and legal position M/s. JNN are liable to pay Service Tax being service provider in terms of Section 68 of Finance Act, 1994, as amended along with interest payable thereon. Failing to pay the Service Tax, M/s. JNN are also liable to penal action under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 for contravention of the provisions of Section 66, 67, 68, 69 and 70 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Rules 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994. No discretion has been allowed under the Statute for any relaxation in leviability of penalty even when the defaulter is a Public Institution like Municipal Corporation therefore, penalties prescribed in law have to be imposed." 4. No discretion has been allowed under the Statute for any relaxation in leviability of penalty even when the defaulter is a Public Institution like Municipal Corporation therefore, penalties prescribed in law have to be imposed." 4. Counsel for the respondent has strongly opposed the appeal and has taken us to the order of the CCE(A) wherein defence reply and record of personal hearing was taken into consideration and it has been observed as under : - The appellant was afforded ample opportunities of personal hearing by this office but they did not avail as evident from the table given as under : - Date of personal hearing fixed for Reasons given by the appellant for not attending the personal hearing 9-4-2008 Letter of personal hearing returned by the postal authority with the remark that 'refused to take on the ground of incomplete address' 24-4-2008 No one appeared nor any adjournment was sought 13-5-2008 Sought adjournment vide letter 13-5-2008 2-7-2008 Sought adjournment 22-7-2008 Appeared for personal hearing and sought adjournment 16-9-2008 Sought adjournment 16-10-2008 Sought adjournment 11-11-2008 Sought adjournment 15-12-2008 Sought adjournment 16-1-2008 Sought adjournment 5. Taking into account that the appellant is a local authority and the liability which is fastened on the local authority is required to be considered on merits, without entering into merits of the case, remit back in the Tribunal to proceed in the matter on merit after condoning delay in view of the fact that appellant is local authority and face a hazardous procedure and being a service tax at relevant time was a new subject and every officer was not acquainted with the law in view of special case, we condone the delay on application before Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal will now hear the matter on merits. Both sides will appear before the Tribunal on 6th November, 2017 and Tribunal will fix the date. No further time will be granted to either side and matter will be considered on merits. 7. With the aforesaid observations the appeal stands disposed of. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the party will contest the matter on merits before the Tribunal.