Judgment : R. Sudhakar, J. 1. C.M.A.No.395 of 2014 is filed as against the order of the CESTAT dated 27.11.2013 in Miscellaneous Order No.42764 of 2013 directing pre-deposit of a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-in a case arising out of service tax demand issued by the jurisdictional Commissioner. 2. C.M.A.No.2136 of 2014 is filed as against the order dated 04.02.2014 in Final Order No.40063 of 2014 for non-compliance of pre-deposit ordered by the Tribunal in the Miscellaneous Application on 27.11.2013. 3. The appellant herein is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing the services of transportation of goods by road, steamer agent services, manpower recruitment or supply agency services as well as services in connection with the import/export of goods. On 19.4.2010, the appellant was issued with a show cause notice bearing No.267 of 2010 by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai demanding service tax of Rs.4,36,60,430/- for the period 2004-05 to December, 2008 together with interest and penalty. Thereafter, the appellant was called for personal hearing on 15.11.2011. Since the appellant did not appear for the personal hearing, subsequent dates were given for personal hearing on 07.12.2011, 27.12.2011 and 18.1.2012. The Commissioner of Central Excise held that the assessee had suppressed the value of taxable services received by them in their returns with an intent to evade payment of appropriate service tax. Since the appellant did not appear for the personal hearing, subsequent dates were given for personal hearing on 07.12.2011, 27.12.2011 and 18.1.2012. The Commissioner of Central Excise held that the assessee had suppressed the value of taxable services received by them in their returns with an intent to evade payment of appropriate service tax. As the appellant failed to appear for all the three hearings to submit their defence, with no other option except to decide the case on merits, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has passed the following order: " i) I confirm the demand of Rs.4,36,60,430/- (Rupees Four Crores Thirty-six Lakhs Sixty Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty only) against M/s.ILS Logistics Pvt. Ltd., being the Service tax payable for the period from 2004-05 to December 2008 under Section 73(2) read with proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994; ii) I appropriate an amount of Rs.3,21,659/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty-one Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty-nine only) paid by them towards the service tax demanded above; iii) I demand interest at appropriate rate from them under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the amount demanded above at (i) from the due date of payment till the date of actual payment; iv) I impose a penalty of Rs.4,36,60,430/- (Rupees Four Crores Thirty-six Lakhs Sixty Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty only) on them under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. v) The amount of penalty shall, however be reduced to 25% of the Service Tax determined, if only the service tax and interest determined is paid along with reduced penalty within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order in terms of proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994; and v) I do not propose to impose any penalty under Section 76 and Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994." 4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax, interest and penalty. The Tribunal, by order dated 27.11.2013, held as follows: "7. Considering the submissions of both sides, and taking into account the financial hardships as the applicant-company ceased the business, we direct the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty lakhs only) within 6 weeks. The Tribunal, by order dated 27.11.2013, held as follows: "7. Considering the submissions of both sides, and taking into account the financial hardships as the applicant-company ceased the business, we direct the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty lakhs only) within 6 weeks. Upon deposit of the said amount, predeposit of balance amount of tax along with interest and penalty would be waived and its recovery is stayed during pendency of the appeal. Compliance is to be reported on 21.1.2014. Both sides are at liberty to mention at the time of compliance for disposal of appeal." 5. Aggrieved by the order of the pre-deposit by the Tribunal, the appellant preferred an appeal before this Court in C.M.A.No.395 of 2014. Thereafter, since the appellant did not comply with the order dated 27.11.2013, directing pre-deposit, the Tribunal, by order dated 04.02.2014, dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the order directing pre-deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before this Court in C.M.A.No.2136 of 2014. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the personal hearing notices have not been served on the appellant and hence the principles of natural justice have been violated. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions reported in 2011 (272) E.L.T.62 (Mad) (Anjaneya Steel Rolling Mills V. CESTAT, Chennai); 2011 (273) E.L.T. 373(Mad) (Alfred Berg & Co. (I) (P) Ltd. V.CESTAT, Chennai); 2006 (206) E.L.T.103 (Guj.) (Aarti Dyeing & printing Mills Pvt. Ltd., V. Union of India) and 2013 (295) E.L.T.547 (Tri.Mumbai) (Ashesh Goradia V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai – III. He also submits that the appellant had stopped their operations due to recession in the business and therefore they did not appear in the adjudication proceedings. Hence, the order of the Tribunal may be set aside. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court. 8. Admittedly, the appellant had received the show cause notice on 21.4.2010 issued by the jurisdictional commissioner demanding service tax. It is not in dispute that the appellant had not responded to the said notice. Subsequently, the appellant was called upon for personal hearing on 15.11.2011. However, by letter dated 14.11.2011, the appellant sought time to appear for the personal hearing. Hence, the personal hearings were fixed on 07.12.2011, 27.12.2011 and 18.01.2012. It is not in dispute that the appellant had not responded to the said notice. Subsequently, the appellant was called upon for personal hearing on 15.11.2011. However, by letter dated 14.11.2011, the appellant sought time to appear for the personal hearing. Hence, the personal hearings were fixed on 07.12.2011, 27.12.2011 and 18.01.2012. Since the appellant did not appear for the personal hearings, the Commissioner, with no other option, had passed the final order confirming the demand. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case as they relate to the proceedings before the Appellate Authority or the Appellate Tribunal. In any case, no specific provision of law is alleged to have been violated by the Department, on the contrary, we find that a show cause notice has been issued and received by the appellant, for which no reply has been filed by the appellant. Thereafter, notices sent for personal hearing have been returned unserved as the door was locked. The Commissioner of Central Excise in his order held as follows: "Personal hearing fixed for 15.11.2011 was sought for adjudication by the notice vide their letter dt.14.11.2011. The notice failed to appear for further hearings fixed on 07.12.2011, 27.12.2011 and 18.01.2012. The notices for personal hearing sent to the address of the assessee were returned undelivered and the efforts to serve the same through the Officers concerned also proved futile as the premises was found locked." 9. From the above, it is clear that the attempt of the Officer to serve on the appellant went futile as the door was found locked. Therefore, the Department had taken all possible attempts to serve on the appellant. In any event, having received the show cause notice, it is the duty of the appellant to respond to the said notice. It is not in dispute that for the personal hearing fixed on 15.11.2011, the appellant had sent a letter on 14.11.2011, (copy of the letter has not been filed before this Court) seeking time to appear. This only shows that the appellant has knowledge about the proceedings. Hence, being aware of the proceedings, it is not now open to the appellant to come forward to say that notices have not been served on the appellant and there is violation of principles of natural justice. We reject the said plea. 10. This only shows that the appellant has knowledge about the proceedings. Hence, being aware of the proceedings, it is not now open to the appellant to come forward to say that notices have not been served on the appellant and there is violation of principles of natural justice. We reject the said plea. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following order: i. We do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal ordering pre-deposit. ii. Consequently, the orders of the Tribunal dated 27.11.2013 and 04.02.2014 stand confirmed. In the result, the above appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is also dismissed.