CCE, Mangalore Respondent Appearance: Sh. S Ananthan, CA for the assessee Sh. Mohammad Yusuf, DR for the Revenue Honble Mr. S. S. Garg, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 25.04.2017 Date of pronouncement : 15.06. 2017 Final Order No. 20896 20897 /2017 Per: V. Padmanabhan: These two appeals are filed against the order in original No. 72/2005 dated 28.9.2006 and the revised order dated 13.2.2007. 2. Second order was passed by the Commissioner (issued under section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994.) seeking to rectify some mistakes in the order dated 28.9.2006. The appellant is engaged in providing banking service and is registered with the department, under Banking and Other Financial Services and Business Auxiliary Service. The department issued show cause notice dated 7.4.2006 on scrutiny of ST3 returns for the half year ending March, 2005 and September, 2005 alleging that : (i) The appellant short paid Service Tax during the period October, 2004 to September 2005 in respect of banking and other financial services and business auxiliary services. Under banking and financial services, the amount was Rs.36,61,819/ and in respect of other one Business Auxiliary service, it was Rs.2,25,843/. (ii) The appellant paid the service tax for the month of March, after a delay and consequently interest of Rs.1,92,578/ is liable to be paid. (iii) The appellant has availed the cenvat credit to the tune of Rs.2,62,41,276/ on the strength of ineligible /improper documents wherein details of input service providers were not available or kept blank. Hence the cenvat credit was sought to be recovered. (iv) After due process of adjudication, Commissioner, vide his order in original dated 28.9.2006, confirmed the demand for payment of service tax as well as interest. Cenvat Credit to the extent of Rs.1,02,19,984/ was ordered to be recovered. In the subsequent impugned order dated 13.2.2007, the Commissioner modified his own order in original. In respect of irregular availment of cenvat credit so disallowed, the amount was revised to Rs.1,26,83,351/. Aggrieved by the above orders, the present appeals have been filed. 3. With the above background we heard Shri S. Ananthan, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Mohammad Yusuf, learned DR. 4. Arguing the case for the appellant, learned Counsel emphasized the following arguments: (i) Demands have been raised for short paid service tax under the categories of banking and other financial services and Business Auxiliary services. As per the details submitted to the adjudicating authority which has also been reproduced in the impugned order dated 28.9.2006 at page 11, it is on record that there have been excess payments of service tax in the months of May, June and September, 2005 in respect of banking and financial services. There have also been short payments during the months of Nov, 2004, February, 2005 to April, 2005, July, 2005 and August, 2005. Likewise in respect of Business Auxiliary services also, excess payments have been made in April, 2005, June, 2005 as well as July, 2005. There have also been short payments in May, 2005, August, 2005 and September, 2005. He submitted that the excess amounts paid have been adjusted towards short paid service tax in the respective ST 3 returns. Once this is done, there is no short payment of Service tax. He relied upon the following case laws to support the argument that such adjustments are permissible, even for the period prior to 16.6.2005 when Rule 6(4A) of the Service tax Rules, 1994 was introduced, such adjustments were permitted. 1) M/s./ Nirantar Security Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Ahmedabad [2014 (5) TMI 578 CESTAT Ahmedabad] 2) CCE, Bhopal vs. Telecom District Manager, BSNL [2017 (4) TMI 386 CESTAT New Delhi] (ii) The demand for payment of interest is not being contested by the appellant. (iii) Regarding the alleged irregular availment of cenvat credit, the learned Counsel submitted that the appellant was in possession of the relevant invoices based on which the cenvat credit have been taken. However, since the input documents are scattered among a large number of branches of the appellant, it is practically not possible to produce copies of such bills at the Head Office level. He also argued that show cause notice had alleged that the appellant ha