Lajja Ram, Technical Member.- In this appeal filed by the revenue, the matter relates to adjustment of excess amount of service tax paid during the period 16-10-1998 to March, 1999 and the amount involved is Rs. 3,10,849. The assessee without following the proper procedure took credit of Rs. 3,10,849 while filing the returns for the period from April, 1999 to September, 1999. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has taken the view that the returns filed for both periods had been assessed and only a short payment of interest of Rs. 2,100 was demanded while finalising the returns for the period from April, 1999 to September, 1999. This amount has been separately paid by the assessee. She took a view that it was a case of obvious mistake, the matter should have been regularised under section 74 of the relevant Act for rectification of mistake.

2. Ms. Ananya Ray, ld. SDR submits that the only provisions referring to the adjustment are those provided under rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. She submits that as the assessee had not followed the prescribed procedure, the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not correct. She, however, fairly agrees that there is no dispute that the excess payment has been made during the period from 16-10-1998 to March, 1999 and it has been adjusted by the assessee thereon in the subsequent period.

3. Shri S.K. Pahwa, ld. Advocate submits that the department has accepted the returns for the period from April, 1999 to September, 1999 wherein the adjustment has been made by the assessee. It was not just and proper to issue show-cause notice and demand duty which was otherwise not payable by them. He submits that the matter be regularised and the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) be confirmed.

4. After hearing both sides and after going through the facts, we find that there is no dispute on facts. The assessee has paid extra tax and in the subsequent returns, they have adjusted that amount, however, they did not follow the prescribed procedure. In the interest of justice when there is no dispute with regard to the extra payment, the matter be regularised as has been done in the impugned order-in-appeal. After careful consideration of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). We do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue, and the same is rejected.