M/s The Telecom District Manager, Respondent Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Appearance: Sh. Sanjay Jain (AR) for the Appellants Ms. None appeared for the Respondent Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing /decision: 14.10.2016 Final Order No. 54222 /2016 Per Archana Wadhwa: Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner, the adjudicating authority vide which he has dropped the demand, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. Nobody represent the Respondent. Accordingly, we have heard Sh. Sanjay Jain, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue. 3. For better appreciation of the dispute involved in the preset appeal and the findings of the Commissioner we reproduce the relevant paragraphs from the impugned order. 12. I have carefully gone through the facts, records of the case, and the submission made by the assessee in writing. It is alleged in the show cause notices that the assessee failed to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 55,06,313/ and Rs. 22,76,458/. The show cause notices also states that the assessee had adjusted the excess amount of Service Tax paid in earlier months in the succeeding months. Thus, I find that the main question is that whether the assessee was correct in adjusting excess amount of service tax paid in earlier months. The period involved pertains to April 2005 to March 2006 and adjustment facility under Service Tax Rules came into effect only from 1.3.2007 onwards [Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994]. Similar issue came up before the Honble Tribunal in the case of CCE Maysore vs Powercell Battery India Ltd. 2010 (19) 400 (Tri. Bang) wherein the Honble Tribunal has held as under: I have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. The issue to be decided in this case is whether the adjustment made by the appellant on the excess payments made by them under the provisions of Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules for payments of service tax, a liability that arose subsequently. The relevant rule which provides for such adjustment is Rule 6 (3) which is reproduced herein below. Where an assessee has paid to the credit of Central(3) Government service tax in respect of a taxable service, which is not so provided by him either wholly or partially for any reason, the assessee may adjust the excess service tax so paid by him (calculated on a pro rata basis) against his service tax liability for the subsequent period, if the assessee has refunded the value of taxable service and the service tax thereon to the person from whom it was received. 7.?I find that the very same rule was interpreted by the coordinate bench in the cases cited by the learned Commissioner. Nothing is brought to my knowledge that an appeal has been filed and stay has been granted against these three decisions. I specifically find that the decision in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Sentinel Security (P) Ltd. 2006 (2) S.T.R. 520 (Tri.Del.) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi 2006 (3) S.T.R. 587 (Tri.Del.) 2005 (182) E.L.T. 463 (Tribunal) is on the point. There is no dispute that the respondent had paid excess service tax during the period, which they sought to adjust subsequently. In view of this, I am of the considered view that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) order is proper and correct and does not suffer from any infirmity. Appeal filed by the revenue is rejected. 13. The ratio of the aforementioned judgment is squarely applicable in the present case, as there is no dispute that the assessee (a PSU) had paid excess Service Tax, which they sought to adjust subsequently. The proceedings initiated by both the show cause notices is, therefore, ordered to be dropped. 4. Revenue is their memo of appeal, apart from contesting the case of merits as also taken the following ground. While dropping the demand, the adjudicating authority has relied