Cenvat credit and outward freight disputes: procedural defects cannot defeat substantive entitlement, while extended limitation needs clear grounds.

Cenvat credit on inward transport of inputs, depot delivery of finished goods, invoices addressed to a head office, and ISD-distributed credit was held admissible where the substantive entitlement was established and the alleged defects were only procedural. Credit could not be denied for minor documentation lapses when the services were identifiable and there was no double availment. On outward freight to the buyer's premises, the demand could not be expanded beyond the show-cause notice, and the interpretational nature of the issue, coupled with prior departmental knowledge, meant extended limitation and penalty were not available. Only the normal-period demand on that outward transportation issue survived, with interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand could be sustained on grounds not forming part of the show-cause notice and whether the extended period and penalty were invocable for credit taken on outward transportation to the buyer's premises; (ii) Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on inward transportation of inputs, outward transportation of finished goods to depots, credit taken on invoices addressed to the head office, and credit distributed through ISD invoices notwithstanding the alleged procedural defects.

Issue (i): Whether the demand could be sustained on grounds not forming part of the show-cause notice and whether the extended period and penalty were invocable for credit taken on outward transportation to the buyer's premises.

Analysis: The notice proceeded only on the allegation that credit was wrongly taken on outward transportation of finished goods to the buyer's premises, but the appellate finding introduced additional categories of credit that were not part of the original notice. A demand cannot be enlarged at the appellate stage by setting up a new case beyond the notice, as that would violate natural justice. On limitation, the issue of the place of removal and eligibility of credit on outward freight was treated as interpretational, the relevant period predated the later contrary view, and prior departmental knowledge was also shown. In those circumstances, extended limitation was not available and penalty could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The demand beyond the scope of the notice was unsustainable, the extended period was not invocable, and the penalty was rightly set aside; only the normal-period demand relating to outward transportation to the buyer's premises survived.

Issue (ii): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on inward transportation of inputs, outward transportation of finished goods to depots, credit taken on invoices addressed to the head office, and credit distributed through ISD invoices notwithstanding the alleged procedural defects.

Analysis: Inward transportation of inputs and outward transportation of finished goods up to depots fell within the inclusive part of the definition of input service. The finding that service tax payment was unproved was rejected on the basis of the record. Invoices describing the recipient as the division, despite being addressed to the head office, did not justify denial where there was only one factory in that division. Likewise, omission of the factory address in ISD invoices was treated as a curable procedural defect because the credit was otherwise identifiable and there was no case of double availment.

Conclusion: Credit on the inward transport, depot transport, head-office invoices, and ISD invoices was admissible and could not be denied on the procedural objections raised.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded substantially, with the impugned order set aside except for the limited normal-period demand on outward transportation to the buyer's premises along with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Credit cannot be denied on a purely procedural lapse where the substantive entitlement is established, and an interpretational dispute existing before the contrary settled view does not justify extended limitation or penalty.

---