https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357345 The Member (Judicial) allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was entitled to cenvat credit for invoices issued in March and April 2014. The amended notification extended the time limit to 1 year, making the credit valid. The six-month limit under a previous notification did not apply retroactively, and the absence of a time limit for earlier invoices meant the appellant did not breach any rules. The appellant's records were deemed sufficient, and the disallowance of credit was overturned. en-us Fri, 16 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Mar 2019 14:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357345 The Member (Judicial) allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was entitled to cenvat credit for invoices issued in March and April 2014. The amended notification extended the time limit to 1 year, making the credit valid. The six-month limit under a previous notification did not apply retroactively, and the absence of a time limit for earlier invoices meant the appellant did not breach any rules. The appellant's records were deemed sufficient, and the disallowance of credit was overturned. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357345