Cenvat credit on outward transportation services after 01.04.2008 required strict compliance with circular conditions; limitation defence failed.

Cenvat credit on outward transportation services after 01.04.2008 was available only on strict compliance with the conditions in CBEC Circular No. 97/8/2007 dated 23.08.2007, and the appellant produced no evidence of meeting those conditions, so the credit was held inadmissible. The limitation plea based on alleged conflicting decisions also failed because no contrary ruling covering the relevant period was shown, and the earlier precedent relied on was confined to a prior regime and did not apply to the post-01.04.2008 position. The denial of credit and the consequential demand were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on outward transportation services for the period after 01.04.2008. (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation on the ground of conflicting decisions.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on outward transportation services for the period after 01.04.2008.

Analysis: Credit on outward transportation services was permissible only if the conditions of CBEC Circular No. 97/8/2007 dated 23.08.2007 were satisfied. The appellant produced no evidence of compliance with those conditions. The decision relied upon for a broader entitlement was held to relate to an earlier period and was treated as inapplicable to the post-01.04.2008 regime.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit on outward transportation services was not admissible to the appellant for the period after 01.04.2008.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation on the ground of conflicting decisions.

Analysis: The plea of limitation failed because no contrary decision covering the relevant period was shown. The Tribunal held that the legal position for the post-01.04.2008 period was clear, and the precedent relied on by the appellant was based on an earlier regime and could not be applied.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was invokable and the demand was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit and the consequential demand were sustained, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For outward transportation services, Cenvat credit after 01.04.2008 is admissible only upon strict compliance with the governing circular conditions, and a limitation defence based on alleged conflicting pre-amendment decisions cannot succeed when the post-amendment legal position is clear.

---