JUDGMENT : C.K. Abdul Rehim, J. 1. The above appeal is filed at the instance of the assessee, who is the appellant before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore, in ST. No. 21674/2017-SM. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. By virtue of an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, the appellant was assessed with service tax on the alleged services provided by the appellant to M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd., with respect to the collection of payments from defaulted credit card holders. The Assistant Commissioner has also imposed penalty on the appellant alleging failure to take registration and in defaulting payment of the service tax due. Against the assessment, the appellant filed an application for review before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Calicut, Review Petition No. 41/2013 ST. Through an order passed on 15.03.2013, the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the order imposing penalty. The assessment of service tax was remanded to be reworked on the basis of the observations contained in the said order. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner(Appeals), the appellant approached this court in W.P.(C) No. 37121/2016. A learned Judge of this court had dismissed the said writ petition through judgment dated 29th November, 2016, holding that, since the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal against the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) stands expired, this court may not be justified in interfering with. Further, it was observed that, the appellant had not challenged the appellate order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on its merits in the writ petition. Thereafter, the appellant filed a properly constituted appeal supported by an application seeking condonation of delay to the extent of 431 days, before the Tribunal. ST/COD/20902/2017 filed in ST/21674/2017 is the delay condonation application. The Tribunal on consideration of the application seeking condonation of delay found that, the appeal was filed only after dismissal of the writ petition by this court, with a delay of 431 days and that the only ground for condonation of delay stated by the appellant is that he was working and settled in Delhi with his family, and that is why he could not file the appeal within the time. Having found that the delay was not satisfactorily explained, the delay condonation petition was dismissed. Consequently the appeal was also dismissed. Having found that the delay was not satisfactorily explained, the delay condonation petition was dismissed. Consequently the appeal was also dismissed. It is challenging the said order, the above appeal is filed before this court. 3. There arise a substantial question of law as to whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay, even without considering the question of allowing it on the basis of imposing costs, without properly adverting to the reasons mentioned for causing the delay. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant had made available before this court a copy of the delay condonation application filed before the Appellate Tribunal. It is specifically mentioned that the appellant had filed a writ petition before this court and it was dismissed. It is also mentioned that he was working in Delhi and settled there with his family and therefore he could not file the appeal in time. It is stated that there was no deliberate laches or negligence on his part in not filing the appeal within the time stipulated. 4. It is well settled principle of law that, in dispensation of justice the judicial authorities should consider and dispose of the causes on merits to the extent possible, rather than dismissing them on technicalities. It is always left open to the judicial authorities to consider the question regarding the condonation of delay with a liberal attitude. Power is also left with such authorities to impose reasonable costs for condoning the delay, in order to compensate the prejudices and hardships which will be caused to the opposite parties. In the case at hand, the Tribunal had mentioned only the reason that the appellant had failed in his attempts before this court in the writ petition filed. It is also stated that the appellant had failed to explain the delay in a satisfactory manner. We are of the considered opinion that the approach made by the Tribunal is not justifiable. The Tribunal ought to have considered the prima facie merits of the appeal and ought to have considered the question of condonation of delay even on the basis of imposing costs. Having been failed in taking such an approach, we are of the opinion that there occurred a miscarriage justice in dismissing the appeal consequent to dismissal of the delay condonation application, which need to be rectified. 5. Having been failed in taking such an approach, we are of the opinion that there occurred a miscarriage justice in dismissing the appeal consequent to dismissal of the delay condonation application, which need to be rectified. 5. Therefore we are of the opinion that the appellant need to be imposed with requisite conditions in order to safe guard the interests of the Revenue, while considering the question regarding condonation of delay. It is brought to our notice that the appellant had remitted 10% of the demand while filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We think it appropriate to direct the appellant to make payment of a further amount of 15% of the existing demand, for the purpose of condoning the delay. Hence the question formulated is answered in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. 6. Hence, the above appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. The delay condonation petition filed before the Tribunal (ST/COD/20902/17) will stand allowed subject to condition of the appellant depositing 15% of the existing demand in addition to the amounts already deposited before the authority concerned, within a period of one month from today. On producing proof regarding such deposit, the Tribunal shall restore the appeal (ST/21674/2017-SM) on its files and shall proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits, at the earliest possible. 7. If the amount as directed above is paid within the time stipulated as above, recovery of the balance amount due shall be kept in abeyance, pending disposal of the appeal by the appellate Tribunal.