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. 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 would not have in the order under challenge referred to the assessee''s submissions that the Indian Institute of Management Training is owned and run by the appellant Trust. The Tribunal was aware of this factual background for if it was not aware it would not have in the order under challenge referred to the assessee''s submissions that the Indian Institute of Management Training is owned and run by the appellant Trust. The assessee''s advocate placed on record the letter written by Pune University to the Chairman of the assessee Trust where it has been permitted to open another institute. He also produced the bank account extracts of the Indian Institute of Management Training to show that the Permanent Account Number is the same as that of the appellant/assessee Trust. Then, a copy of the resolution of the trust is also produced and a certificate from the Chartered Accountant. 7. It is in these circumstances that the preliminary objection, though raised, should have been dealt with appropriately. While it is true that in Service Tax Appeal No. 497/2012 the show cause notice issued by the Revenue/Department is to the Indian Institute of Management Training for demand of Service Tax under the category of commercial training and coaching class service. It may be that the Trust was never a noticee before the Adjudicating Authority but by letter dated 20-9-2011 it submitted a reply on behalf the Indian Institute of Management and Training. It may be that the notice was addressed to the Educational Institution, but the Tribunal was aware that it was the Trust who was representing the matter before the Adjudicating Authority. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal should not have taken a hyper technical view. Once the Management or administration of this Educational Institute wholly vests in the Trust, then, it has filed this appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) entertained that appeal. There was no occasion, therefore, for the Tribunal not to go into the merits of the findings rendered by the Commissioner of the Central Excise (Appeals) in the order under Appeal dated 14-2-2014 and the order-in-original dated 194-2012. 8. It is in these circumstances that once the matter was sent back by the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter the Order-in-Original was passed on 14-2-2014, then, the merits of both orders are before the Tribunal. The Tribunal refrains from going into the merits of the matter and rests its finding on a technical issue of maintainability. 8. It is in these circumstances that once the matter was sent back by the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter the Order-in-Original was passed on 14-2-2014, then, the merits of both orders are before the Tribunal. The Tribunal refrains from going into the merits of the matter and rests its finding on a technical issue of maintainability. When the Tribunal was aware that it''s bounden duty was to scrutinize the orders brought before it on merits and adjudicate the issue of taxability, then, it should not have indulged itself and wasted its time on such technical matters which do not go to the root of the case at all. The Tribunal, by doing this, is actually avoiding its obligation and duty in law. Once it has not performed its obligation/duty, then, we cannot sustain the order under challenge. The order under challenge dated 7-4-2017 in Appeal Nos. ST/497/2012 and ST/86461/2014 is quashed and set aside. Both appeals are restored to the file of the Tribunal for adjudication on merits and in accordance with law. The Tribunal should not allow any preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeals to be raised nor it should render any finding on such issues any longer in this matter. The Tribunal must proceed to adjudicate and decide the appeals on merits. That it should do in accordance with law. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion insofar as the contentions on merits and of both sides. 9. Both the appeals are allowed in these terms with no order as to costs. 10. Matter remanded.