CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO.1 Service Tax Appeal No. 40684 of 2016 (Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 399, 400/2015, (STA – II), dated 30.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, (Appeals – II), Newry Towers, 3^rd Floor, Plot No.2054, I Block, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040).

BSR Enterprises …Appellant No.40, Nathamuni Street Alankar Flat Basement, T.Nagar Chennai 600 017 Vs.

The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise ….Respondent Chennai South Commissionerate MHU Complex, No.692, Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai 600 035 AND Service Tax Appeal No. 40685 of 2016 (Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 399, 400/2015, (STA – II), dated 30.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, (Appeals – II), Newry Towers, 3^rd Floor, Plot No.2054, I Block, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040).

BSR Enterprises …Appellant No.40, Nathamuni Street Alankar Flat Basement, T.Nagar Chennai 600 017 Vs.

The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise ….Respondent Chennai South Commissionerate MHU Complex, No.692, Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai 600 035 APPEARANCE:

None for the Appellant Ms. Rajini Menon, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON’BLE MR. AJAYAN T.V., MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER Nos.40279-40280/2026 DATE OF HEARING : 20.02.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 20.02.2026 Per Mr. AJAYAN T.V.

When the matter came up for hearing today, it is observed that there is no one to represent the appellant nor is there any request for adjournment. It is seen from case proceedings that these appeals pertain to the year 2016 and has come up for hearing on six occasions earlier on 25.03.2025, 02.05.2025, 22.07.2025, 29.08.2025, 27.10.2025 and 18.12.2025. On 29.08.2025, the matter was adjourned to 27.10.2025 with directions to the Registry to serve notice by RPAD. On 27.10.2025, it was seen that the notice issued was returned with the remarks by the postal department as ‘left’. Registry was therefore directed to issue notice through department and the matter was adjourned to 18.12.2025.

2. Ld. AR has filed a report dated 17.12.2025 containing a copy of letter from the concerned Jurisdictional Superintendent of GST and Central Excise informing that at the address given by the appellant it was found that no such unit was functioning or existing at the given address. Accordingly, a Mahazar dated 04.12.2025 was drawn, duly recording the non-existence of the appellant’s establishment at the notified address. We find that the Company has not taken any efforts to ensure proper representation, intimate any change of communication address or contact details and does not appear to be serious in pursuing the appeal.

3. Ms. Rajini Menon, learned Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue has submitted that as per Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, no adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a party during the hearing of the appeals. Ld. A.R has further contended that as per Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, if the appellant does not appear on the date fixed for hearing, the Tribunal has the discretion to dismiss the appeal for default. Ld. A.R. strongly urged that given the lackadaisical approach of the appellant, the matter may be dismissed for default.

4. At this juncture, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant statutory provisions, which are as under:

35C. Orders of Appellate Tribunal.-

(1A) The Appellate Tribunal may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of hearing of an appeal, grant time, from time to time, to the parties or any of them and adjourn the hearing of the appeal for reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal.”

RULE 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 provide as follows:-

Action on appeal for appellant’s default. — Where on the day fixed for the hearing of the appeal or on any other da