2015 (11) TMI 720 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT Credit - GTA service - whether the appellant is entitled to take input service credit on outward transportation services after 01.04.2008 or not - Held that - The assessee can avail Cenvat Credit if the assessee satisfies the condition of the CBEC Circular No.97/8/2007 dated 23.08.2007. In this case the appellant has not provided any evidence that they have complied with the conditions of the said circular. Further, the contention of the Ld. Counsel is that the show cause notice has been issued be invoking extended period of limitation as there were conflicting decisions during the impugned period. But the Ld. Counsel has failed to produce any such contrary decision before me which relates to the impugned period. When specifically the definition for availment of the Cenvat Credit on outward transportation services has been changed w.e.f. 01.04.2008.The Ld. Counsel heavily relied on the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Real Ispat Pvt. Ltd. to say that show cause notice is barred by limitation. The decision relied by this Tribunal while drafting the said case are of the period is prior to 01.04.2008. Therefore, said decision of this Tribunal is per incuriam and cannot be relied upon. As for the period post 01.04.2008 law is very clear that on outward transportation services Cenvat Credit is available if the assessee satisfies the condition of the CBEC Circular No.97/8/2007 dated 23.08.2007. As in this case appellant has failed to comply with the conditions of the said circular, therefore, appellant is not entitled to take Cenvat Credit on outward transportation services in this case for the period post 01.04.2008. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of Cenvat Credit on outward transportation services
- Entitlement to Cenvat Credit post 01.04.2008
- Invoking extended period of limitation
- Compliance with CBEC Circular No.97/8/2007

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against an order denying Cenvat Credit on outward transportation services availed during April 2010 to September 2011. A show cause notice was issued to deny the credit, and after adjudication, the denial was confirmed along with penalties. The appellant contended that they believed they were entitled to the credit due to conflicting decisions and argued against invoking the extended period of limitation. The appellant cited various cases to support their argument. The opposing party reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

The main issue was whether the appellant could claim input service credit on outward transportation services post 01.04.2008. The judgment clarified that the appellant must satisfy the conditions of CBEC Circular No.97/8/2007 for availing Cenvat Credit. The appellant failed to provide evidence of compliance with the circular. The argument that the show cause notice was time-barred due to conflicting decisions was dismissed, as the appellant did not present any contrary decision relevant to the period in question. The Tribunal highlighted that the law post 01.04.2008 was clear regarding Cenvat Credit on outward transportation services, and since the appellant did not meet the circular's conditions, they were not entitled to the credit for the period post 01.04.2008.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no issues with the impugned order and upheld it, resulting in the dismissal of the appellant's appeal.